.<■'-- 



>' 



UlBRARY OF CONGRESS.! 






J UNITED STATES OF AMERICA* 



L 



7 






T 7 »^ 






7lf SI. 



* 



LETTERS 



ADDRESSED TO 



RELATIVES AND FRIENES, 



CHIEFLY 



IN REPLY TO ARGUMENTS 



IN SUPPORT OF 



THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. 



By MARY S 

7 



. B. DANA,^A^v^^u2/L^ 



AUTHOR OF 



' THE SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN HARPS,' ' THE PARTED FAMILY,' ETC. 




Y 

B a S TON: 

JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY. 
1845. 



•J,** 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by 

James Munroe and Company, 

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Massachusetts. 



BOSTON: 

PRESS OF THURSTON, TORRY, AND CO. 

31 Devonshire Street. 



INTRODUCTION. 



The days of torture, fire, and the sword, have, happily, almost 
entirely passed away. He who changes his religious opinions 
has not now, in Protestant countries at least, to fear the strong 
arm of ecclesiastical power, nor the civil law ; no Inquisition 
holds over our heads its rod of terror ; no dungeons open to 
receive us ; no " Form of Concord" is imposed upon us; no 
" Act of uniformity " binds us to submit to certain rites and 
ceremonies. But is there not a kind of persecution still en- 
acted, which, though less extreme and violent, is quite as 
onerous, and no less difficult to bear? 

The days of proscription, slander, insult, and neglect, have 
by no means passed away. Cold greetings, averted looks, long 
and intimate friendships sundered in a moment, tell a mournful 
tale in respect to the toleration really exercised, in this country, 
so proud of its civil and religious liberty, towards those who 
have conscientiously changed their opinions. Nor are these 
the only methods by which the spirit of unyielding intolerance 
is developed. Injurious suspicions ; direct charges which would 
almost break the heart of the sufferer, did he not feel himself 
above their reach ; the imputation of any and every motive but 
the real one ; all these must be experienced and endured by 
one who feels it his duty to leave the ranks of popular or ortho- 



IV INTRODUCTION. 

dox theology, commonly so callled, and candidly avow his 
honest opinions. 

Many people do not seem to imagine, that one can honestly 
depart from the faith in which he has been educated. Indepen- 
dent thought in matters of religion seems to be regarded as an 
arrogant assumption, and to excite general indignation and 
surprise. It is evidently thought to be an innovation upon the 
established order of things. It is a phenomenon for which 
people are not prepared. And when I look around me, and 
observe how the great majority of mankind are blindly follow- 
ing the lead of others, how few there are who think for them- 
selves, how few are willing to test their religious opinions by 
comparing them with other systems of faith, by bringing them 
all to " the law and to the testimony " of God's inspired word, 
clinging firmly to truth, following it wherever it may lead, 
and boldly rejecting error, — when these things meet my view, 
though I may be distressed at the exhibition of intolerance, I 
ought not, perhaps, to be surprised at the spirit which is mani- 
fested. 

That I have ample ground for these remarks, will probably 
become sufficiently evident from the ensuing pages of this work. 
I have received letters from various quarters, since my change 
of opinions became known, some of the sentiments of which 
have amazed and appalled me. As I have been charged with 
indecent haste in making a change so fraught with momentous 
consequences, I wish to show, by other evidence than my own, 
that my change has not been so sudden as it has seemed to 
those who had no intimate knowledge of the workings of my 
mind. As my motives have been unkindly assailed, I wish to 
show, that I have not been actuated by mere caprice, but that 
I have reasons for my present opinions, which, at least, satisfy 



INTRODUCTION. V 

me. So much has this community interested itself in my 
affairs, — so much has been said for which there was no foun- 
dation, — so much ignorance has been evinced in regard to my 
present opinions, and the religious belief of that body of Chris- 
tians with whom I now sympathize, — that I feel it due to 
myself and to them, to remove, if possible, some of the erro- 
neous impressions of those whose injurious remarks are the 
result of ignorance and prejudice, and not of malice. 

To some of the numerous communications I have recently 
received, I propose to reply in the following pages. It was im- 
possible for me to answer individually all the letters I received ; 
and, even if I could have done so, there were many other per- 
sons who were saying, substantially, the very same things, and 
who could not have been reached by mere individual replies to 
my various letters. The extracts I shall make from these com- 
munications will, I think, abundantly prove that I have been, in 
a manner, compelled to speak in my own defence, and in defence 
of those who, through me, and in consequence of my present 
position, have been extensively and unjustly assailed. And 
may I not hope, that I may be instrumental in doing something 
to promote the interests of liberal and enlightened Christianity, 
or, at least, to soften the rigor of that judgment which has 
been so freely passed upon a conscientious and respectable body 
of Christians? 

At this age of the world, a rational religion is certainly 
needed to counteract the prevalence of infidelity ; and nothing 
but a rational religion will do this. Those in high places may 
sound the alarm, if they please, and tell us, that it is dangerous 
to use our reason in matters of religion, but it will be all in 
vain. We are not living in the dark ages ; the majority of 
men in the present day will have a reasonable religion, or they 
a* 



VI INTRODUCTION. 

will have none. It will not always do to bind the consciences 
of men to creeds formed in the ages of darkness and super- 
stition. As the world continues to emerge, gradually, it may 
be, from the midnight gloom in which it was enveloped before 
the Reformation, the work of reform will be more and more 
complete. This is the natural course of things. The morning 
sun slowly dispels the darkness of night, and shines brighter 
and brighter unto the noon-day, although it may not always 
shine uninterruptedly. Sometimes a cloud arises, and obscures 
for a while its radiance ; but when the cloud disperses, we find 
that the god of day has been silently, but surely, advancing in 
his course. So is it with the glorious work of reformation and 
moral renovation. It is not half accomplished yet. Sometimes 
the work advances rapidly ; sometimes, for a season, it seems 
to be retrograding ; but it is cheering to perceive, that, on the 
whole, its march is onward. I observe, with pleasure, that 
many irrational and unscriptural tenets, formerly so popular, 
are now only nominally held. When their advocates are 
pressed upon the subject, they explain them away, so as to 
make them mean just nothing at all ; and thus they virtually 
abandon them. And I also rejoice to perceive, that liberal 
sentiments are slowly, but surely, spreading themselves among 
the great body of the people. Let us thank God, and take 
courage, 'while we pray that the truth, as it is in Jesus, may 
prosper and prevail until all the inhabitants of the earth shall 
be brought under its blessed influence and control. 

I will here take occasion to remark, that it will be impossible 
to observe any great degree of order in my arrangement of 
topics, as the same general subjects have been touched upon, in 
the different letters addressed to me, in a variety of different 
aspects. I could not, in reply to them, bring together all the 



INTRODUCTION. Vll 

remarks relating- to one general subject, without creating some 
degree of confusion. There will therefore, perhaps, be a little 
repetition of topics in different letters ; but I hope, on so im- 
portant a subject, that a little repetition will be pardoned. 
There is no limit to the frequency with which the same objec- 
tions are advanced, after they have been answered over and 
over again. 

It will be observed, that all the ensuing letters, with the 
exception of those to my parents, and one to a particular friend, 
are addressed as if to one individual ; though, in reality, this 
is not the case. I have pursued this plan, for the sake of 
friendly concealment and convenience. The letters of my 
revered father contain no such sweeping assertions and denun- 
ciations, as will be noticed in some of the extracts from other 
letters. Though he has felt the trial as deeply as any other 
individual, his method with me has been that of calm investi- 
gation and argument, and therefore I have no desire to conceal 
the authorship of those things which he has written. He has 
approached the subject with that honest candor for which he is 
remarkable, and for which I honor and revere him. 

I bespeak for the following pages a kind and candid consid- 
eration ; and may the Holy Spirit of God lead into all truth 
both writer and readers. 

Charleston, S. C. 



CONTENTS 



Page. 

Introduction, . . . . . iii 

LETTER I. 

A change of views, p. 1. The Trinity, 2. Modified Views, 3. 
Spirit of Inquiry, 4. Means of information, 5. Solitary In- 
vestigation, 6. New Views, 7 - 11. .... 1 

LETTER II. 
The terms God and Lord, 12-14. Explanations of Texts, Isa. vi. 
1-10, compared with John xii. 41, pp. 15, 16. Rom. ix. 5, p. 
16. Phil. ii. 6, 7, p. 17. Rev. i. 6, p. 18. Rev. v. 5-14, 
p. 19. Rev. xxii. 16, p. 19. 1 Tim. vi. 15, comp. with Rev. 
xvii. 14, p. 20. 2 Cor. xiii. 14, p. 21. John i. 1, pp. 21, 22. 
Isa. vi. 1-10, comp. with John xii. 41, p. 23. John xx. 28, pp. 
23, 24, 25. Phil. ii. 6, 7, pp. 26, 27. 2 Pet. iii. 18, pp. 27, 
23. Heb. i. 6, p. 28. Col. i. 16, 17, p. 29. . . .12 

LETTER III. 

Scott's notes, 30. Whitby's retractation, 30, 31. Extracts from 
Whitby, 31, 32. The divine Will, 33. Whitby on the Opinions 
of the Fathers, 34, 35. Sir Isaac Newton, 35. Pliny's letter 
to Trajan, 36. St. John's Gospel, 37, 38. . . . 30 

LETTER IV. 

Connection of doctrines, 39. Always an Inquirer, 40. Collateral 
doctrines, 41. The great point of difference, 42. Sources of 
Information, 43. Importance of our Influence, 44. Scott and 
Newton, 45. ....... 39 

LETTER V. 

Investigation no Crime, 47, 48. Paternal faithfulness, 49. Caution 
recommended, 50. Review of circumstances, 51, 52. Exhibi- 
tion of consequences, 53. ..... 47 



X CONTENTS. 

LETTER VI. 

Remarks upon Honesty, 54. The Trinitarian Doxology, 55. The 
Unitarian Hymn Book, 56. Dr. Watts a Unitarian, 57-61. 
Watts's Psalms and Hymns, 62, 63. . . .54 

LETTER VII. 

An Explanation, 64. Early Opinions, 65. Bible Phraseology, 66. 
Inquiries and Replies, 67, 63. Extracts from Dewey's Ser- 
mons, 69. On the use of certain terms, 70. On the Baptismal 
form, 70, 71. On the Atonement, 71. On Human Depravity, 
72. On Regeneration and Election, 73. On the Future State, 
74. ........ 64 

LETTER VIII. 

Inquiries answered, 75. Morality of Unitarians, 76. Involuntary 
Errors, 77. Unitarian Writings, 78. Lines on Luke xviii. 29, 
30, pp. 79, 80. . . . . . . .75 

LETTER IX. 

An overflow of Feeling, 81. Love and Honor to Christ, 82. Christ 
a King, 83. Mistakes corrected, 84. Human Reason, 85. 
Expression of sentiments, 86, 87. A Prayer, 87, 88. . . 81 

LETTER X. 

Unitarians do not deny Christ, 89. Additions to truth Errors, 90. 
Views of Atonement, 91. Illustration, 92, 93. Christ our 
Foundation, 94, 95. . . . . . .89 

LETTER XI. 

The Scriptures honor Christ, 96. Trinitarians dishonor Christ, 97. 
An Extract, 98. Unitarians Christians, 99. Christ's author- 
ity, 100, 101. ....... 96 

LETTER XII. 

Instability, 102. Opinions ought to be tested, 103, 104, 105, Who 
has the Holy Spirit? 106. No infallible human guide, 107, 
103. ........ 102 

LETTER XIII. 

Mental Freedom, 109. General Ignorance, 110. Assembly's Cate- 
chism, 111. Inward Conflicts, 112. Depravity, 113. Election, 
114. Conflicts, 115. . . . . .109 

LETTER XIV. 

Calvinism, 116-121 . . . . . . .116 



CONTENTS. XI 

LETTER XV. 

God our Father, 122. Conceptions of God, 123, 124. Native De- 
pravity, 125- 127. . . . . . .122 

LETTER XVI. 

Contemplation of Virtue beneficial, 128. Triumphs of Virtue, 129. 
Fenelon, 130. Horror of Calvinism, 131. My former faith, 
132,133. Blessing of Freedom, 134. . . . .128 

LETTER XVII. 

Signs of the Times, 135, 136. 1 Tim. iii. 16, p. 137. Mysteries, 

133-140. Extract from Robinson, 141, 142. . . .135 

LETTER XVIII. 

An Extract, 143. Abstract Truth, 144. Erroneous Premises, 145, 
146. Human Creeds, 147. Danger of Combination, 148. 
Belief not voluntary, 149. An Extract from Sparks, 150. On 
Vows, 151. - - . . . . .143 

LETTER XIX. 

Truth and its Consequences, 152. Volume of Poems, 153. God, 
our Saviour, 154. Christ's words, those of the Father, 155. 
A Reply, 156. Extract and Reply, 157, 158. . . 152 

LETTER XX. 

Election, 159. Final Perseverance of Saints, 160. Anti-Christ, 
161, 162. An Extract, 163. Dogmatism, a sign of Weakness, 
164. Arminians, 165. Christ not the Infinite God, 166. The 
Trinity, 167, 168. . . . . . . 159 

LETTER XXI. 

The phrase " I Am," 169, 170. Early Trinitarians, 171. Extract 

from Sparks, 172-175. . . . . . .169 

LETTER XXII. 

Extracts from Sparks — the Fathers, 176-179. The Apostles, 
180. Roman Catholic Writers, 181, 1S2. Lutherans and Ar- 
minians, 183. Dr. Watts, 184. Smalridge and Atterbury, 185. 
Tradition and Inference, 186, 187. . . . .176 

LETTER XXIII. 

Erroneous Premises, 188. Colossians ii. 9, p. 189. Absurdity, 
190. Religious Freedom, 191, 192. Searching the Scriptures, 
193. Uniformity, 194, 195. Mental Freedom, 196. Injurious 
Imputations, 197, 193. Christian Charity, 199, 200. . . 1S8 



Xll CONTENTS. 

LETTER XXIV. 

Mental Suffering, 201. Extract and Reply, 202, 203. An Extract, 
204. Denunciation unwise, 205. The Duke of Sussex, 206. 
Unitarians love Charity, 207. Religious Controversy, 208. An 
Extract, 209. Phil. ii. 6, p, 210. Atonement, 211. Mediation, 
212. Christ ever Present, 213. Christ's Knowledge, 214. 
Omnipresence, 215. Harsh Epithets, 216, 217. . . 201 

LETTER XXV. 

Extracts, 218, 219. The Light of the Truth, 220. Colossians, 
chap. I. and II., p. 221, 222. Creation hy Christ a Spiritual 
one, 223-227. An Extract, 228. Mystery, 229. Creation by 
Proxy, 230. Human Teaching not Infallible, 231. Extract and 
Reply, 232, 233. . . . . . . .218 

LETTER XXVI. 

Method of Investigation, 234-236. Use of Reason, 237, 238. 

Principles of Unitarianism, 239 911. .... 234 

LETTER XXVII. 

No Human Creeds, 242, 243. Who are Christ's Friends ? 244, 

245. The Lost Sheep, 246. Extracts and Replies, 247, 248. 242 

LETTER XXVIII. 

Extracts and Replies, 249. Scripture Tests, 250, 251. Testimonies 

of Trinitarians, 252-255. . . . . .249 

LETTER XXIX. 

Causes of Infidelity, 256 - 258. Signs of the Times, 259 - 263. . 256 

LETTER XXX. 

Painful Themes, 264, 265. John Blanco White, 266. General Re- 
marks, 267, 268. Unwillingness to read, 269, 270. An Extract, 
271, 272. . . . . . . . .264 

Appendix, . . . . . . .275-313 



LETTER I. 



January 19th, 1845. 
My kind and venerated Parents : 

It has become my solemn duty to make to you an 
announcement, which, I fear, will fill your hearts with 
sorrow. Would to God, that I could save you from 
the pain, which, from my knowledge of your views 
and feelings, I am sure awaits you ; but I believe, as 
God is my Judge, that truth is dearer to me than life 
itself, and I dare no longer disavow the sentiments, 
which, after thorough, and honest, and prayerful delib- 
eration, I have at length adopted. 

I will keep you no longer in suspense, but will pro- 
ceed to declare, that I do not now believe that my 
blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Supreme 
God. I believe that there is but one God, the Father, 
of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by 
whom are all things. I believe that " all power," was 
given unto him in Heaven and on earth ; * that he was 

* I would remark, that I suppose these terms to be applied to 
Christ as the Messiah, and that the expression, " all power," re- 
lates to his Messiahship, and to the offices he was to perform in 
Heaven and on earth, in connection with the redemption of man- 
kind, which glorious object was what his Father sent him to 

1 



*6 THE TRINITY. 

the Messiah predicted by the Old Testament writers, 
who, in the fulness of time, came into the world with a 
commission from God, and full power and authority to 
do the work which God had given him to do. In other 
words, after long and earnest deliberation, much dili- 
gent study of the Holy Scriptures, and fervent prayer to 
God for the assistance of his spirit, I conscientiously 
and firmly reject the doctrine of the Trinity. 

This doctrine was a part of my education. I re- 
ceived it, as many others do, without thorough investi- 
gation, though, I must confess, it has often perplexed 
me beyond measure. Still I held it, as it seems to me 
all must do, as a strange mystery, which I must not 
attempt to comprehend ; not considering, that a mys- 
tery does not necessarily suppose an incomprehensi- 
bility ; and losing sight of the danger of admitting, 
what now appears to me to be an impossibility. It is 
impossible for me, and I now perceive that it has 
always been impossible to make one of three, or three 
of one, — one perfect and infinite being equal to three 
perfect and infinite beings. There may be gifted minds 
capable of comprehending this doctrine, but such is 
not mine. It is plain to me now, that I have all my 
life been worshipping three distinct beings ; never hav- 
ing been able, with the most strenuous efforts, to 
combine the three in my own mind so as to form a 

accomplish. It does not seem natural to use any of these terms 
in an unlimited sense. Jerome, one of the early Fathers, sup- 
poses that this term, "all power," had reference to the great 
power which came upon him when the Spirit of God descended 
ypon him at his baptism. 



MODIFIED VIEWS. 6 

simple idea. But now I bow to the divine authority, 
when I hear Jehovah saying, cc Hear, O Israei, the 
Lord thy God is one Lord." 

But to return. So anxious have I always been for 
clearer views upon this point, that I have eagerly read 
everything upon the Trinitarian side of the question 
which came in my way ; yet always without the satis- 
faction so desirable to an honest and inquisitive mind, 
and always with the same melancholy feeling, that it 
was a strange mystery ; though still I felt bound to re- 
ceive it. 

And now I will relate to you the process through 
which my mind has passed. For many years, I have 
not been able to believe, that faith in the Trinity was 
necessary to salvation, because I saw a great many 
exemplary Christians who did not hold the doctrine, 
but who nevertheless believed that Jesus was ct the 
Christ," and "the Son of God ;" and because the 
apostle John has said, that whosoever believeth that 
Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and that whosoever 
shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwell- 
eth in him, and he in God. 

I have often been startled, by hearing passages of 
Scripture wrested from what appeared to me to be 
their legitimate meaning, and forced to an agreement 
with some favorite hypothesis. Not long ago, in a 
bible class which I attended, the first part of the gos- 
pel by John was examined, and then many doubts 
found their way into my mind, but not with so much 
force, or in so tangible a form, as they have recently 
assumed. But, had I ever been disposed to give 



4 SPIRIT OF INQUIRY. 

the subject a thorough examination, I have never had 
access to the arguments in favor of Unitarianism, nor 
have I ever in my life before read upon that side of 
the question. 

Not very long ago, while conversing with a much- 
loved friend, (you will know to whom I allude,) I 
found that my impressions in regard to Unitarians and 
to their system were exceedingly erroneous ; and I 
expressed a wish to know a little more about their 
faith and practice. Was this desire wrong ? Was it 
not in perfect accordance with that Christian charity, 
which u hopeth all things," and u thinketh no evil ? " 

And here let me exonerate from blame the two in- 
dividuals from whom, entirely at my own request, I 
have procured the information which I wanted. In 
both instances, they expressed a hesitation in comply- 
ing with my request, fearing to be considered obtrusive, 
if not by myself, at least by my friends. T cannot 
but believe, that this feeling arose from a confidence in 
the strength of their position, and a foresight of the 
consequences which have actually ensued. 

Now what was I to do ? Shut my eyes resolutely, 
and blindly cherish the faith in which I had been edu- 
cated, or sift the matter for myself ? What kind of 
faith is that, which fears to stand the test of impartial 
inquiry ? Would not an ingenuous mind lose all confi- 
dence in itself, and its received opinions, while there 
remained a consciousness of this fear and dread of in- 
vestigation ? Was it not my sacred duty to u prove 
all things," and " hold fast " only to that which I found 
to be " good " ? 



MEANS OF INFORMATION. 5 

Under these circumstances I insisted upon having 
access to some writings on the subject, and such as I 
wished were accordingly granted me. Now I know 
too well the candor and nobleness of my dear parents 
to fear that they will impute blame where none is de- 
served, unless indeed they carry the doctrine of impu- 
tation further than I think they do. Yet, in the first 
overflow of feeling, they may not view the matter as 
temperately and fairly as they will do hereafter, and 
this is why I enlarge upon the point. Now suppose 
that a Unitarian of my age and mental capacities — 
one, in fact, situated just as I am — should come to 
you, and ask you what the Trinitarian faith really was ; 
would you withhold from such a person the means of 
information ? I am very sure you would not. Be 
generous then, and if there be any blame in the matter, 
let it rest upon the guilty, and not upon the innocent, — 
and then it certainly will fall upon no human agent, but 
upon a system which will not bear investigation. 

Perhaps you will say, " Why did you not bring your 
doubts to us ? Perhaps we could have solved them." 
For an opposite course I had several reasons. First, 
I knew perfectly well what your views were, and I had 
access to Trinitarian systems of divinity, which were 
considered standard works ; secondly, I wished to 
examine the subject with an unbiassed, unfettered mind ; 
in short, to forget everything but the truth itself; and 
thirdly, I did not wish to give my friends unnecessary 
pain. 

When the subject first presented itself fully and dis- 
tinctly before my mind, in connection with a desire and 
1* 



D SOLITARY INVESTIGATION. 

a determination to give it a complete investigation, I 
felt an instinctive fear, almost a horror, at my presump- 
tion. I took Dr. Dwight's sermons upon the divinity 
of Christ, and tried to be convinced that I had all my 
life been in the right — I read them over and over 
again — I had anxious days and sleepless nights ; and 
even in my dreams my visions were of three distinct 
Gods, entangled together in dreadful and inextricable 
confusion. Thus was I driven to the examination of 
the subject with a power which I could not withstand. 

My chief source of information has been the New 
Testament, and especially the gospel by John. I 
endeavored to read with an unprejudiced mind, and a 
teachable spirit, and to explain passages of doubtful 
import by those which could admit of no possible mis- 
take. While thus reading, the doctrines of the abso- 
lute unity of God, and of the derived power and 
authority of his Son, shone forth from every page of the 
blessed volume with a brightness and a clearness per- 
fectly convincing to my wondering mind. I could no 
longer resist the mass of evidence which seemed fully 
to establish the superiority of the Father to the Son. 
1 found that Christ always spoke of himself as inferior 
to his Father, of his power and authority as derived 
from his Father, — and it seemed to me that, if the 
case were otherwise, (with humility let me say it,) our 
blessed Lord had studiously endeavored to mislead us. 

I also found that the vast number of texts which di- 
rectly and explicitly asserted Christ's inferiority, could 
only be set aside by an assumption of the doctrine of 
two natures in Christ Jesus ; and even on this assump- 



NEW VIEWS. 7 

tion, such words could not have been used without 
apparent equivocation. On the other hand, the small 
number of texts which are brought forward as evidence 
of the deity of our Lord, can be explained without 
doing such violence to our reason, as the doctrine of 
two complete natures in one person — one infinite and 
the other finite — always must. 

It seemed strange to me, that our compassionate 
Heavenly Father, who so well knew the weakness of 
human nature, should require us to receive a doctrine, 
violating the common laws of that very reason which 
he has given us, without such an explicit statement of 
it, and such an authoritative command for its reception, 
as would leave no possible chance for human reason to 
gainsay or resist it. But I could find no such state- 
ment, and no such command in the Bible. Now, I had 
always read the Scriptures with this doctrine pervading 
my mind, and thus pre-occupied, every passage of holy 
writ was made, if possible, to harmonize with my opin- 
ions. 

I now found that our blessed Lord had given us a 
very different clue to the right understanding of the 
Scriptures when he declared, that all power was given 
to him in Heaven and on earth. With this, his own 
declaration, constantly in view, I found that I could 
understand many things which were dark before ; that 
I had, in fact, got possession of the most prominent 
idea, — the current doctrine of the New Testament. 
This declaration of our Saviour is, to me, a most sat- 
isfactory comment on those passages brought forward in 
support of the deity of the Son of God. Now what 



8 NEW VIEWS. 

are inferences, and what are metaphysical arguments to 
the unequivocal and oft repeated declarations of Christ 
himself, and of his apostles ? With these for my guide, 
the Bible becomes plain. And when I remember that 
many of these passages relied upon by Trinitarians, 
admit of various readings, — and when I consider the 
well known history of the received version of the 
Scriptures, and that our translation was made by Trini- 
tarians, under the auspices of that pedantic bigot, 
James I., I feel that the Trinitarian side of the ques- 
tion has had every possible advantage, and am perfectly 
satisfied with the views which I have adopted. 

And now, when I sit down seriously to compare the 
system of doctrines with which I have so long been 
fettered, with those under the influence of which my 
freed spirit now joyfully springs to meet its benevolent 
Creator, I cannot but exclaim, cc thanks be to God, 
who hath given me the victory, through my Lord Jesus 
Christ ! " My mind is disenthralled, disenchanted, 
awakened as from a deathlike stupor, — all mists are 
cleared away, — and this feeling of light, and life, and 
liberty, arises from a delightful consciousness that I have 
learned to give the Scriptures a rational and simple inter- 
pretation, and that, on the most important of all sub- 
jects, I have learned to think for myself. 

My views of my Lord and Master are dearer to me 
than ever before, because they are more definite. He 
is still my Saviour, and the Saviour of the world — 
the instrument chosen by his Father through whom to 
bestow his unmerited mercy ; a willing instrument, 
for he delighted to do his Father's will ; an all-suffi- 



NEW VIEWS. y 

cient instrument, for all power was given unto him. 
I believe that a living faith, which will lead us to imi- 
tate him, is the only ground of our salvation ; but, 
while I fully believe in the divinity of his character and 
of his mission, I do not believe that he was the supreme 
God himself. I believe in the efficacy of his death,- — 
the most striking circumstance of his history, — for it was 
the seal of a new and better covenant, — an evidence 
of his divine commission, and of his devotion to his 
Father's will ; without which he would not have given 
us such an assurance of the glorious certainty of a re- 
surrection, by being himself the first-born from the dead; 
without which his w T ork would have been incomplete, 
and much less calculated i to affect our hearts, to bring 
us to repentance, to lead us to God, and to save our 
souls. 

You cannot suppose, my beloved Parents, that I 
have embraced these opinions hastily or carelessly. It 
is painful to expose oneself to the charge of fickleness, 
and it is very painful to separate oneself from those 
who are near and dear ; but God is to be my Judge ; 
to Him alone I must answer for my opinions ; to my 
own Master I must stand or fall ; and I dare not dis- 
avow what, upon mature deliberation, I believe to be 
the truth. I love you, God knows how well ! but I 
love the truth better ; and your blessed Saviour and mine 
has said, cc He that loveth father or mother more than 
me, is not worthy of me." If then I embrace in my 
heart the doctrine which appears to me to be taught by 
Christ himself, must I not avow it ? 

With an anxious mind, an honest, tender conscience, 



10 NEW VIEWS. 

and a prayerful spirit, I have searched the New Testa- 
ment, and the result is what I have told you. My mind 
is open to conviction, though I do not believe that any 
views can be presented with which I am not already 
familiar. Mourn not over me, my beloved Parents, as 
over one lost to you forever. If you think me in an 
error, rest assured it is not a fatal one. I am firmlv 
convinced that no doctrine can be necessary to salvation 
which is not so plainly revealed, that the conscientious 
inquirer after truth cannot possibly mistake it. " Be- 
lieve on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shah be saved," 
" He that believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of 
God," — about these plain statements there can be no 
mistake. Here is a glorious platform * on which sin- 

* " It will appear," says Dr. Gibson, Bishop of London, in his 
" Second Pastoral Letter," pp. 24, 25, " that the several denomi- 
nations of Christians agree both in the substance of religion, and 
in the necessary enforcements of the practice of it ; that the world 
and all things were created by God, and are under the direction 
and government of his all-powerful hand, and all-seeing eye ; that 
there is an essential difference between good and evil, virtue and 
vice ; that there will be a state of future rewards and punishments, 
according to our behavior in this life ; that Christ was a teacher 
sent from God, and that his Apostles were divinely inspired; that 
all Christians are bound to declare and profess themselves to be 
his disciples ; that not only the exercise of the several virtues, 
but also a belief in Christ, is necessary in order to their obtaining 
the pardon of sin, the favor of God, and eternal life; that the 
worship of God is to be performed chiefly by the heart, in pray- 
ers, praises, and thanksgiving, and, as to all other points, that they 
are bound to live by the rule which Christ and his Apostles have 
left them in the Holy Scriptures. Here then is a fixed, certain, 
and uniform rule of faith and practice, containing all the most 



NEW VIEWS. 11 

cere Christians of every name can meet, and exchange 
the right hand of fellowship, exclaiming in sweet accord, 
" thanks be to God for his unspeakable gift! " 

That our Heavenly Father may enable us all more 
perfectly to know him, the only true God, and Jesus 
Christ, whom he has sent ; that we may increase in 
faith, and love, and good works ; and especially that I 
may show in all my future life, that there is indeed the 
same mind in me which was also in Christ Jesus, is the 
earnest prayer of your affectionate daughter. 

necessary points of religion established by a divine sanction, em- 
braced as such by all denominations of Christians, &c." 

To all which 1 heartily subscribe, and I therefore claim the 
name of Christian. 



LETTER II. 



THE TERMS GOD AND LORD. 

My dear Father : 

The words God and Lord do not, I suppose, ne- 
cessarily denote absolute supremacy, although they do 
denote dominion and power. In studying the Scrip- 
tures, we ought to bear in mind the common sense in 
which certain terms were used by the common people 
at the time the Scriptures were written ; because we 
know that, in the course of time, words do very much 
change their signification. In the Bible we have the 
term God applied in various ways. In regard to its use 
among the Greek and Roman philosophers and poets, 
who lived about the time of our Saviour, we are informed 
by the history of that period ; we know that the term 
was used with very extensive latitude ; and it is natural 
to suppose that the writers of the New Testament, who 
were chosen from the people, used their terms as they 
were used by the people, and intended to give a mean- 
ing which would be readily understood by the people. 
The early Christians used the word God in relation to 
different degrees of superiority or power, and not as it 
is now used, in an absolute sense. And I wish these 



THE TERMS GOD AND LORD. 13 

facts to be borne in mind while you peruse this letter. 
I am free to confess, that, as a general thing, the term 
should not now be applied to any but the Supreme 
Being, because now it has an absolute and definite 
meaning ; though, in considering those passages of 
Scripture where it is applied to subordinate beings, it 
must still be used, but always with the fact of its differ- 
ent use in another age of the world, kept steadily in 



view 



* 



In this sense I do admit that the Saviour of the world, 
the Messiah, may be called a God ; and I know that 
he is constantly called Lord ; and why should he not 
be, when his Father made him both Lord and Christ ? 
But it is concerning the term God that I wish to write. 
It is then, I think, a relative term, a name for a being 
who has dominion. Now, we are expressly told that 
the Supreme Being gave Christ all power in Heaven 
and on earth. Likewise, because the Father loved the 
Son, he gave u all things into his hand." He crowned 
him with glory and honor, and did set him over the 
works of his hands. And, u in that he put all in sub- 
jection under him, he left nothing that is not put under 
him." Thus, it appears to me, in the sense which I 
have before explained, a sense which was well under- 
stood when the Scriptures were written, our Heavenly 
Father made his well beloved Son a God over us, and 
over all the works of his hands ; as he made Moses a 
God to Pharaoh — and as he called them Gods to whom 
the word of God came] — and as he commanded his 

* See Appendix A. t See Appendix B. 

2 



14 THE TERMS GOD AND LORD. 

people not to revile the Gods. Thus, truly, there are 
Gods many and Lords many ; yet to us there is, in an 
absolute sense, but one God, the Father, of whom are 
all things, &c. Christ is then made a God to us, under 
Him, who is u the blessed and only Potentate — the 
only wise God — who only hath immortality." 

This view of the subject explains to my mind all 
those passages where Christ is called God and Lord, 
even as they stand in our common version, though most 
of them are said to admit of a different translation. 
"Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"* — that 
is, that throne which God had given to his Son, which 
must mean the seat of power in the mediatorial king- 
dom. It does not follow that he who occupies the 
throne by permission of the Father, who obtained it by 
the gift of the Father, existed from all eternity. The 
assertion is concerning the throne, or dominion, which 
is to endure forever ; though, when cometh the end, it 
is to be delivered up to God the Father. f In this way 
I can also understand how Peter called his master Lord 
of all — u preaching peace by Jesus Christ, (he is Lord 
of all.)" J For when he lifted up his voice on the day 
of Pentecost, he closed his noble address to the men of 
Judea, and all that, dwelt at Jerusalem, with these 
words : u know assuredly that God hath made that 
same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and 
Christ." 

Nor am I startled at that passage where Christ, ac- 
cording to Trinitarians, is said to be " over all, God 

* Hebrews i. 8. t See Appendix C. $ Acts x. 36. 



EXPLANATIONS OF TEXTS. 15 

blessed forever."* For we are expressly told how this 
can be. If all things were put under him, he certainly 
is " over all," and consequently a God ; though let us 
never forget how " manifest" it is that " He is except- 
ed which did put all things under him." f 

I will now tell you, my dear father, how my mind 
has been satisfied in regard to those texts which you 
have proposed for my consideration. The first is Is. vi. 
1—10, compared with John xii. 41. They do not ap- 
pear to me at all to favor the doctrine of the supreme 
deity of the Son of God. The purposes of God are 
constantly spoken of as having been accomplished long 
before they literally were. It is a common mode of 
speech in the Bible, and implies the certainty of the 
fulfilment of God's designs. Thus we read of the 
Lamb slain before the foundation of the world. As the 
Messiah, Isaiah foresaw Christ's glory. To give you 
my own ideas of what may be the meaning of these 
passages, I cannot do better than to quote the remarks 
they have drawn forth from Trinitarian commentators. 
I will now quote from the 361st page of Wilson's Con- 
cessions of Trinitarians. 

t; These things said Isaiah, when, by the spirit of 
prophecy, he saw his glory, i. e. foresaw the glorious 
appearance of Christ on earth in respect of the excellency 
of his doctrine, and greatness of his miracles, and spake 
of him, i. e. prophesied of Christ. — Wells. [Simi- 
larly, Erasmus, Op. vii. p. 600; Grotius, Baxter, 
and Hammond.] 

* Rom. ix. 5. t See Appendix D. 



16 ISA. VI. 1-10. COMP. WITH JOHN XII. 41. 

" His glory ; that is, according to the application of 
the evangelist, the glory of Christ ; though Isaiah spoke 
of the Father. — Simon. [According to the Racovian 
Catechism, p. 116, Chrysostom, Theophylact, 
Guido Perpinian, Monotessaro, and Alcazar, 
maintained that it was the glory of God the Father 
which appeared to Isaiah.] 

u Avrov, his, refers to God Morus justly ob- 
serves, that Isaiah, in chap, vi., did not speak of the 
future greatness of the Messianic kingdom. — J. G. 
Rosenmuller. 

" Eids t he sow, either signifies he foresaw, as in chap, 
viii. 56, so that avrov {his and him) refers, in both 
clauses, to the Messiah ; or rather, it has respect to 
the description of the glory of God, in Isa. vi. 1, sqq. 
The words of him, may, however, probably relate to 
the Messiah, inasmuch as the antecedent here is not 
more remote than in other passages. — Vater. 

"The pronoun avrov, his, should be referred to Lord 
(namely God) in ver. 38 ; . . . . and the passage has 
respect to Isa. vi. 1, sqq. where the prophet describes 
a vision, and affirms that he saw Jehovah sitting on a 
throne, &c. — Kuinoel. (So Bloomfield.)" 

I will merely remark, my dear father, that these and 
similar explanations of this passage never fell in my way- 
till long after my own mind was settled on the subject, 
and I had come to the .conclusion that it contained no 
proof whatever of the supreme divinity of Jesus Christ. 

The next passage, Rom.ix. 5, I have already noticed. 

The next, Phil. ii. 6, 7, even as it is translated in 
our common version, so far from presenting any difficulty 



phil. ii. 6, 7. 17 

to my mind, is, in my view, a strong Unitarian text. 
" Who, being in the form of God" — that is, the 
brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image 
of his person — made so by Him who also created man 
in his own image — " thought it not robbery to be equal 
with God." He came as the Messenger of God to 
man, as God's vicegerent on earth, and in that sense it 
loas no robbery to proclaim himself equal with God, and 
to demand equal obedience from mankind. He who 
refuses to obey Christ, refuses obedience to the Father, 
for the Father spake to the world through him. If we 
read on, we shall see how it was that he demanded that 
men should honor him even as they honored the Father. 
u God," says the Apostle, "hath highly exalted him, 
and given him a name that is above every name, that at 
the name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every 
tongue confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the 
Father." The whole passage, it seems to me, even 
• when read as it is in our English Bibles, is a clear and 
satisfactory explanation of the grounds on which our 
Master thought it not robbery to be equal with God ; 
and seems intended to fill our minds with the most ex- 
alted ideas of the dignity and authority of the u one 
Mediator between God and man, the man Christ 
Jesus." But you are undoubtedly aware that many 
Trinitarians have contended for a different translation 
of the passage. And many likewise contend that the 
expression, " being in the form of God," does not 
convey the idea of Christ's own proper deity. In proof 
of these positions, see Appendix E. 

The next passage you mention is found in Rev. i. 6. 
2* 



18 REV. I. 6. 

I will quote the text, with a portion of the fifth verse. 
u Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins 
in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests 
unto God and his Father, to him be glory and dominion 
forever and ever. Amen." Here everlasting glory 
and dominion are ascribed to Christ. And why not ? 
No Unitarian will object to this. On the contrary, they 
rejoice to ascribe to him, as the Head of his church, as 
the King of saints — aye, even as the King of Kings 
and Lord of Lords — glory and dominion forever and 
ever. The kingdom which God sent his Son to es- 
tablish, is to endure forever, and his dominion through- 
out all generations, and glory will forever crown the 
head of him who died for man's redemption. But I can 
see nothing in the text under consideration like a recog- 
nition of his supreme divinity. On the contrary, the 
first verse of the Revelations seems to settle the ques- 
tion in another way. " The Revelation of Jesus 
Christ," says the author, "which God gave unto* 
/urn." 

I do not see why, in the future world, subordinate 
worship may not be rendered to Jesus Christ. 1 am 
not sure that, even after the Mediatorial kingdom shall 
have been delivered up to God, and Christ's kingly 
office, as it related to this world, shall have ceased, the 
well beloved Son may not be still honored as a king in 
Heaven, in reward for his obedience unto death. Why 
even we are made, by Jesus Christ, u kings and priests 
unto God and his Father," and are, in a sense, to reign 
with him forever. If we overcome, we shall sit with 
him on his throne, as he also overcame, and is set down 
with his Father on his throne. 



REV. V. 5-14. REV. XXII. 16. 19 

You next refer me to Rev. v. 5- 14. This passage 
is of very much the same character with the last, and 
is urged as a proof that Christ is to be worshipped in 
Heaven. But here homage and worship is rendered 
to him as to a Lamb slain — as to a Redeemer, and 
not as to the Almighty and supreme God. The wor- 
ship here described is very different from that rendered 
to the Father. Let me direct your attention to some 
remarks of Trinitarian writers upon this passage. 

41 Here," says Bishop Sherlock, (referring to Chap, 
iv. 1 1 ,) cc you see plainly that the adoration paid to God 
the Father is founded on his being the Creator of all 
things. . . . Here, (referring to Chap. v. 9, 12,) 
you as plainly see the worship paid to Christ to be 
founded in this, that he was slain, and did by his blood 
redeem us. . . . From all which it is evident that the 
worship paid to Christ is founded on the redemption, 
and relates to that power and authority which he received 
from God at his resurrection." — Works, vol. ii. p. 
491 ; Disc. I. 

Daubuz remarks : u As the fundamental reason for 
which God the Father receiveth worship of the Jews 
and Gentiles, is because he hath created all things, and 
preserves them by his will, to have it perfected and 
executed on them ; so the fundamental reason for which 
the Son is worshipped is because he was slain, and shed 
his blood thereby to redeem all mankind." Surely, 
then, if he is worshipped, because he was slain, he is 
not worshipped as the supreme God. 

The next passage, Rev. xxii. 16, I have seen very 
satisfactorily explained in Pitkin's reply to Baker.* 

* See Appendix F. 



20 1 TIM. VI. 15, COM?. WITH REV. XVII. 14. 

The next reference is to Heb. i. S. According to 
my views already expressed in regard to the different 
senses in which the term worship may be used, and in 
regard to the subordinate worship which I believe may 
be rendered to Christ — the passage, I think, admits 
of satisfactory explanation. 1 see no reason to suppose 
that the worship there spoken of implies supreme wor- 
ship, any more than the worship or prostration of the 
wise men from the east before the babe of Bethlehem. 

Nor do the next passages to which you direct my 
attention, interfere, as I think, with my views. In 
1 Tim. vi. 15, the phrase ct King of Kings and Lord 
of Lords," is applied to the blessed and only Poten- 
tate, the supreme God ; and in Rev. xvii. 14, the same 
phrase is applied to the Lamb. But it by no means 
necessarily follows, that these two beings are one and the 
same, or even equal. If we wait ct until the appearing 
of our Lord Jesus Christ," He, " who is the blessed 
and only Potentate, the King of Kings and Lord of 
Lords," will u show " us how and why his well beloved 
Son is also proclaimed lt King of Kings and Lord of 
Lords ; " indeed, I think he has plainly shown it to us 
already. But now we see through a glass darkly ; 
then, blessed be our Heavenly Father, we shall know 
even as we are known. For further observations in 
regard to the above-mentioned passage, Rev. xvii. 14, 
see Appendix G. 

Another of the passages to which you refer, is the 
Apostolic benediction, ct The grace of the Lord Jesus 
Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Ghost, be with you all." 2 Cor. xiii. 14. 



2 COR. XIII. 14. JOHN I. 1. 21 

And in regard to it you say, " It has ever been among 
the most conclusive to my mind in favor of the doctrine, 
which, from its difficulties, you have been tempted to 
reject." But, my dear father, it does not strike my 
mind at all in the same way. If grace and truth came 
by Jesus Christ, and God gives the influences of his 
spirit to enlighten and sanctify us, it seems perfectly nat- 
ural that the "grace" and "communion" which is 
thus bestowed upon us by the Father, should be men- 
tioned in connection with that " love " which devised 
and carries on the scheme of redemption. I cannot 
see how the mere fact of their being named together 
proves anything in regard to a trinity of persons in the 
Godhead. For further remarks upon this passage, 
quoted from cc Burnap's Expository Lectures," see 
Appendix H. 

You allude to John i. 1. u The Word was God." 
If by the term u Word," Christ was certainly intended, 
it would be a strong passage in favor of your views. 
But that is a question which must, after diligent investi- 
gation, be decided by each one for himself. The pas- 
sage, says Norton, " has been misunderstood through 
ignorance or disregard to the opinions or modes of 
conception, which the writer, St. John, had in mind." 
Some quotations on this subject from his " Statement 
of Reasons," will show you what has been, to me, a 
very satisfactory explanation of this difficult passage. 
" There is no English word," says he, u answering to 
the Greek word Logos, as here used. It was employed 
to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity, 
familiar at the time when St. John wrote, and inti- 



22 JOHN I. 1. 

mately blended with the philosophy of his age, but long 
since obsolete, and so foreign from our habits of think- 
ing, that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to 
its apprehension. The Greek word Logos, in one of 
its primary senses, answered nearly to our word Reason. 
It denoted that faculty by which the mind disposes its 
ideas in their proper relations to each other ; the Dis- 
posing Power, if I may so speak, of the mind. In 
reference to this primary sense, it was applied to the 
Deity, but in a wider significance. The Logos of God 
was regarded not in its strictest sense, as merely the 
Reason of God ; but under certain aspects, as the 
Wisdom, the Mind, the Intellect of God. To this the 
creation of all things was especially ascribed. The 
conception may seem obvious in itself ; but the cause 
why the creation was primarily referred to the Logos or 
Intellect of God, rather than to his goodness or omni- 
potence, is to be found in the Platonic philosophy, as it 
existed about the time of Christ, and particularly as 
taught by the eminent Jewish philosopher, Philo of 
Alexandria." 

Mr. Norton then goes on to describe this philosophy, 
and especially the strong personification of the Logos. 
I wish I had time and space to transcribe the whole 
passage, but must content myself by referring you to 
the work itself from which these extracts are taken. It 
will repay an attentive perusal. Mr. Norton continues, 
" St. John, writing in Asia Minor, where many for 
whom he intended his Gospel were familiar with the 
conception of the Logos, has probably, for this reason, 
adopted the term i Logos ' in the proem of his gospel, 



ISA. VI. 1-10. JOHN XII. 41. JOHN XX. 28. 23 

to express that manifestation of God by Christ, which 
is elsewhere referred to the Spirit of God." Mr. Nor- 
ton's reasons for this opinion, are, to my mind, per- 
fectly conclusive ; you will find them in his " Statement 
of Reasons," pp. 229-250. 

You allude again, in a more particular manner, to the 
passage Isa. vi. I — 10, as compared with John, xii. 41. 
You speak of the name Jehovah, as applied to Christ, 
and you inquire, Ct Who, on such a comparison of the 
passages, was it, or could it be, whose glory, as Jeho- 
vah, the prophet saw ? By what possible process can 
these texts be silenced ? " They could not be silenced 
if St. John had expressly informed us that the whole 
display of glory which Isaiah saw, w T as the glory of 
Christ ; but if the words, t% when he saw his glory, and 
spake of him," refer to Christ, which some Trinita- 
rians doubt,* it must be to Christ's glory as Messiah — 
a glory given him by his Father — which Isaiah saw 
as a part of the vision described in the 6th chapter of 
his prophecy. 

In allusion to John xx. 28, where Thomas says, 
"Mv Lord and my God," you remark, that " Unita- 
rians prefer to let Thomas, in his alleged astonishment, 
or fright, fall into blasphemy, rather than receive his 
attestation." I do not know that I have met with a 
single Unitarian writer who regards these words merely 
as an unmeaning exclamation of surprise. Norton says, 

* " jIvtov, his, refers to God." — J. G. Rosenmullkr. " The 
pronoun his should be referred to Lord (namely God) in verse 
38." — Ki'inoel. (So Bloomfield.) "Two manuscripts and a 
few versions have the glory of God, or of his God " — Dr. Adam 
Clarice. Concessions of Trinitarians t pp. Ib4, 361. 



24 john xx. 28. 

" Both titles, (that is, Lord and God,) I believe, were 
applied by Thomas to Jesus. But the name ' God ' 
was employed by him, not as the proper name of the 
Deity, but as an appellative, according to a common 
use of it in his day ; or perhaps in a figurative sense, 
as it sometimes occurs in modern writers." He then 
refers to several passages from Young, of which the 
following is one : — 



" The death-bed of the just 

Is it his death-bed ? No ; it is his shrine : 
Behold him there just rising to a God." 

But all Trinitarians # do not consider this passage 
as proving the supreme divinity of Christ. Kuinoel 
says : " From this address of Thomas, many commen- 
tators are of opinion, that the doctrine of Christ's di- 
vine nature may be established, and conceive that the 
sentence, when filled up, would be thus : 'lam not 
faithless ; I doubt no longer ; thou art my Lord and 
my God.' But, on the contrary, others justly ob- 
serve, that Thomas used the term God in the sense in 
which it is applied to kings and judges, who were con- 
sidered as representatives of Deity, and preeminently 
to the Messiah. See Ps. lxxxii. 6, 7 ; xlv. 6, 7 ; ex. 
1. John x. 35." 

* I have been informed by a gentleman whose critical attain- 
ments cannot be doubted, and who is likewise a Unitarian, that 
Kuinoel and Rosenmuller were neither of them Trinitarians. 
They were, he says, undoubtedly Arians. Their testimony, 
therefore, must be received by Trinitarians for just what, in their 
estimation, it is worth. Michaelis, however, is, I believe, good 
Trinitarian authority. 



john xx. 28. 25 

Rosenmuller thus explains the passage: ct l 
acknowledge thee as my Lord, and as the Messiah, 
my King." 

Michaelis says : "I do not understand this as an 
address to Jesus ; but thus, ' Yes ; it is he indeed ! 
He, my Lord and my God ! ' Yet, in giving this inter 
pretation, I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at 
once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree 
of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. 
This appears to me too much for the then existing 
knowledge of the disciples ; and we have no intimation 
that they recognized the divine nature of Christ, before 
the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore 
inclined to understand this expression, which broke out 
from Thomas in the height of his astonishment, in a 
figurative sense, denoting only ' whom I shall ever rev- 
erence in the highest degree.' If he only recollected 
what he had heard from the mouth of Jesus ten days 
before, (chapter xiv. 9, 10,) that recollection might 
have given occasion to an expression which probably 
Thomas himself could not have perfectly explained ; 
as is often the case with such words as escape us when 
we are under the most overpowering surprise. But 
yet the expression might be equivalent to saying, c He ! 
my Lord ! with whom God is most intimately united, and 
is in him ! In whom I behold God, as it were, present 
before me.' Or, a person raised from the dead might 
be regarded as a divinity ; for the word God is not 
always used in the strict doctrinal sense." All the 
above quotations are from Concessions of Trinitarians, 
pp. 383, 384. 



26 phil. ii. 6, 7. 

Again, you allude in a more especial manner than 
before, to Phil. ii. 6, 7, and after requesting me to 
notice the expression, ct took upon him," you ask, " is 
not the him a being pre-existent, to whom another was 
added by way of assumption ? " I reply, that that de- 
pends upon the sense you give to the succeeding words, 
"form of a servant," — whether you mean to apply it 
to his condition, or to his essential nature. In regard to 
this point you say, u if the expression l form of a ser- 
vant ' means, as it unquestionably does, a real servant, 
must not the former expression, 'form of God,' imply 
a real God ? " And you ask, u what magic can un- 
deify Christ here, which will not, at the same time, 
and precisely in the same way, unhumanize him also ? " 

I have no idea that either of those expressions have 
any reference to a divine or a human nature, but merely, 
the one, to a condition of majesty and authority, and 
the other, to a condition of meanness and servility. 
That this is also the opinion of many Trinitarians, I 
can easily prove to you. 

Piscator says : " By the form of God I do not 
think that the Apostle means the divine nature itself. 
. . . . As, in the following verse, the phrase form 
of a servant signifies, not human nature itself, but a 
servile state or condition ; so, by parity of reasoning, 
the expression form of God denotes, not the divine 
nature, but a divine state or condition." 

"Jesus Christ," says Le Clerc, u as man, ap- 
peared, in certain respects, more like God than men, 
inasmuch as he commanded all nature with absolute 
authority, and performed unparalleled miracles. This 



phil. ii. 6, 7. 2 pet. in. 18. 27 

the Apostle terms the form, that is, the resemblance of 
God ; a sense in which the same word is used in verse 
7, and in Mark xvi. 12." 

"Nothing," says Beausobre, " agrees better with 
this passage, than what the Evangelist says : ' Knowing 
that the Father had given all things into his hands' (this 
is the form of God,) c he laid aside his garments, 
poured water into a basin, took a towel, and girded him- 
self, and began to wash his disciples' feet ' (this is the 
form of a slave.) John xiii. 3— 5." 

Whitbf, while he was a Trinitarian, thus commented 
on this passage : " By this expression most interpreters 
do understand, that the Apostle doth intend Christ was 
essentially and truly God ; but though this be a certain 
truth, yet I conceive this cannot be the import of the 
expression in this place." And, according to Wilson, 
Parkhurst and Macknight "both deny that the 
form of God indicates essence or nature, and, with 
Whitby, interpret the phrase as referring to the visible 
glorious light by which Christ manifested himself to the 
patriarchs." — Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 477, 
478. See also again Appendix E, where the same 
opinion is seen to have been expressed by Michaelis, 
Storr, Calvin, Heerbrand, and others. 

Again, you refer me to 2 Pet. iii. IS. "To him be 
glory both now and forever;" and you ask, "Can 
glory be given to any but God ? or, if it can, can it, 
as to duration, be given forever to any but him ?" 
I answer, that I find, in several places in the New Tes- 
tament, that glory was expressly given to Christ by his 
Father. Christ asserts that he is glorified in his followers; 



28 2 PET. III. 18. HEB. I. 6. 

u All mine are thine, and thine are mine, and lam 
glorified in them." He speaks of the " glory " which, 
says he, addressing his Father, u thou gavest me;" 
and in a prayer for his disciples, he says, " that they 
may behold my glory, lohich thou hast given wie." 
And shall not I ascribe glory to him, on whom God 
has so abundantly bestowed glory ? And if I ascribe 
glory to him now, why should I not do it as long as my 
soul exists, which will be " forever ? " Why should I 
not, without believing him to be God himself, be will- 
ing to say, u to him be glory both now and forever ? " 

You call my attention, in the next place, to Heb. i. 6, 
" And let all the angels of God worship him ; " and 
you inquire '* when man is forbidden to worship angels, 
as in Rev. xxii. 8, 9, can angels be ordered to wor- 
ship a mere man ? " I answer, that this would be a 
startling passage, if the term u worship " were always 
used in the Bible in the same sense, and to denote 
supreme homage. But that it is frequently used in 
relation to subordinate homage or reverence, there can 
be no doubt. This passage, then, which, in itself con- 
sidered, conveys a doubtful meaning, must be interpre- 
ted so as to harmonize with what is plain and undoubted. 
Now to me it is plain that Christ has revealed himself 
as a being distinct from and inferior to his Father, and 
therefore I conclude that God's " angels " or messen- 
gers, were only commanded to render him subordinate 
worship, or reverence. 

In allusion to Col. i. 16, 17, you say, u even if we 
here admit, according to the Unitarian hypothesis, that 
Christ was God's agent in the creation of the terrestrial 



col. i. 16, 17. 29 

and celestial worlds, they are said to be made, not only 
c by him,' but c for him. ' " But I do not understand 
the creation here spoken of to have any reference to 
the material worlds, but only to that spiritual creation, 
or to that new order of things which Christ came to 
introduce. See Letter XXIV. where the subject is 
more fully discussed. 



2# 



LETTER III. 



SCOTT AND WHITBY. 
My dear Father : 

I have shown you how, to my mind, the passages 
you have mentioned may be reconciled with the doc- 
trine of the subordinate nature of the Son of God. My 
mother has requested me to read prayerfully the Gospel 
of St. John, with the notes and comments of Dr. Scott. 
I have done so, but no new light has been introduced 
into my mind, and my sentiments remain unaltered. I 
find that a great many of the notes touching the supreme 
divinity of the Messiah, are accredited to Dr. Whitby, 
and it strikes me that it is not quite fair in Scott to pub- 
lish the sentiments of an author — to give them to the 
world as his opinions — when that author has formally 
and solemnly retracted those very opinions. This has 
been done by Dr. Whitby, and he has, in doing it, 
made use of such language as the following : u Nothing," 
says he, u but the love of truth can be supposed to 
extort such a retraction from me, who, having already 
lived so long beyond the common period of life, can 
have nothing else to do but to prepare for my great 
change ; and, in order thereunto, to make my peace 



SCOTT AND WHITBY. 31 

with God, and my own conscience, before I die. To 
this purpose I solemnly appeal to the searcher of hearts, 
and call God to witness, whether I have hastily, or 
rashly, departed from the common opinion ; or rather, 
whether I have not deliberately and calmly weighed 
the arguments on both sides drawn from Scripture and 
antiquity." Now it may be that Dr. Scott has some- 
where given some information to the simple and un- 
learned readers of his commentaries that the man, whose 
opinions he has so freely quoted in regard to the Deity 
of the Son of God, afterwards solemnly retracted those 
opinions i if he has not — and I have never been aware 
that he has — then I say it is at least a question in my 
mind whether the procedure was perfectly candid and 
honest. 

Dr. Whitby says : " When I wrote my commentaries 
on the New Testament, I went on, too hastily I own, 
in the common beaten road of other reputed orthodox 
divines ; conceiving, first, that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost, in one complex notion, were one and the 
same God, by virtue of the same individual essence 

communicated from the Father." " Then, 

as a natural consequence from this doctrine, I secondly, 
concluded that those divine persons differed only in the 
manner of their existence. That the difference can be 
only modal, even Dr. South hath fully demonstrated ; 
and that this was the opinion generally received from 
the fourth century, may be seen in the close of my first 
part to Dr. Waterland." Dr. Whitby then goes on to 
prove that the orthodox Anti-Arian fathers condemned 
this very doctrine as rank Sabellianism ; and this he 



32 EXTRACTS FROM WHITBY. 

proves from the words of Athanasius and Epiphanius ; 
both testifying, that to say the Father and the Son were 
of one and the same substance was Sabellianism. tc And 
surely," he says, " to contend that this is the doctrine 
of the Church of England, is to dishonor our Church, 
and in effect to charge her with that heresy which was 
exploded with scorn by the whole Church of Christ 
from the third to the present century." And yet, my 
dear father, this doctrine is what my catechism taught 
me ; viz., " the same in substance, equal in power and 
glory." 

Dr. Whitby goes on to prove, from Scripture, and 
the fathers of the first three centuries, incontestably, as 
it appears to me, that the nature and powers of Christ 
were entirely derived from the Father. " The primi- 
tive fathers," says he, u of the first three centuries do 
also generally agree that the Son received his power 
from the Father, as it hath been observed already. 
And particularly Hippolytus, ' that his knowledge was 
given him by the Father : ' to which the orthodox are 
forced to say that he received this power, this domi- 
nion, and these attributes, by receiving the same indivi- 
dual essence with the Father ; which yet is a thing 
impossible in itself, since an individual essence cannot 
be communicated, for that very reason, because it is an 
individual ; that it is one, and no more." 

Again, he says, that they who style themselves or- 
thodox u constantly assert, that the will, power and 
wisdom of the whole Trinity is one and the same ; and 
that what one wills, does, and knows, they all will, do, 
and know, by virtue of this unity of essence." Again, 



THE DIVINE WILL. 33 

u that where the numerical essence is one and the same, 
the will and actions of that essence must be one and the 
same. And where the will and actions are numerically 
distinct and diverse, there the individual essence must 
also be distinct and different. And this Damascen 
declares to be the doctrine of the holy Fathers. Hence, 
it demonstratively follows, that, if the essence of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, be numerically one and 
the same, the will, and all the other actions of these 
three, must be numerically one and the same ; so that, 
what the Father wills and does, the Son and Holy 
Ghost must will and do also." 

Now, my dear father, if the three persons in the Tri- 
nity have one mind and ivill, how could Christ say he 
came not to do his own will, but the will of him that 
sent him ? "I seek not mine own will, but the will of 
the Father which sent me." He was speaking of a 
will which he came to do, and therefore must have re- 
ference to the mind and will which devised the scheme 
of redemption, in other words, the divine will, and this 
will, he says, was the will of another. Now, it has been 
shown, that, according to the orthodox belief, the Fa- 
ther and Son have the same mind and ivill ; but Christ, 
by these declarations, most plainly and fully contradicts 
the assertion. 

On the question whether the absolute equality of the 
Son with the Father, or the doctrine of the Trinity was 
known to the earliest Christian writers, I have collected 
from Whitby's Last Thoughts the following remarks : 
" The hypostatical union" was " broached first by 
Cyril of Alexandria, and by Theodoret pronounced to 



34 THE FATHERS ON THE TRINITY. 

be a thing unknown to the Fathers that lived before him. 

Origen proceeds, page 387, to show, that, 

among the multitude of believers, some, differing from 
the rest^ rashly affirmed, as the Noetians did, that our 
Saviour was the God over all, which, saith he, i we 
christians, or, we of the church, do not believe ; as giv- 
ing credit to the same Saviour who said, my Father is 
greater than I.' And he saith, ' we christians mani- 
festly teach, that the Son is not stronger than the 
Father, who is the Creator of the world, but inferior in 
power to him.' Which words afford the clearest de- 
monstration that the Church of that age did not believe 
that our Saviour was the Supreme God. Novatian is, 
if possible, still more express in his interpretation" — that 
is, of the text, I and my Father are one. " For in an- 
swer to the objection of the Sabellians from this place, 
he saith, ' that unum being here put in the neuter gen- 
der, denotes not an unity of person, but a concord of 
society between them ; they being deservedly styled 
one, by reason of their concord and love, and because, 
whatsoever the Son is, he is from the Father.' Pam- 
pelius's note upon these words is this : c Novatian did 
not write accurately in this place, as making no men- 
tion of the communion of the essence between the 
Father and the Son, but introducing an example from 
the apostle contrary to it ; in which thing I doubt not to 
pronounce him erroneous, seeing the Church afterwards^ 
in diverse councils, defined the contrary.' Many of 
the ante-Nicene Fathers in effect said the same thing. 
Justin pronounces the Son to be l another from the 
Father in number, but not in consent.' Because he never 



OPINIONS OF THE FATHERS. 35 

would do anything but what ' the Maker of the world, 
above whom there is no other God, would have him do 
and speak.' Eusebius pronounces the Father and Son 
to be one, ' not as to the essence, but as to communion 
of glory.' The council of Antioch pronounced the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be c three in subsistence, 
but one only in consent' or concord. Novatian says, 
God the Father is ' that one God, to whose greatness, 
majesty, and power^ nothing can be compared.' And 
indeed, all the Greek Fathers, from Justin to Eusebius 
inclusively, do frequently inform us that the Son ' did 
obey the will of the Father,' that he did ' minister and 
was subservient to him,' &c. &c." — Whitby. 

Sir Isaac Newton's opinions in regard to the Trinity 
may be gathered from his " Historical Account of Two 
Corruptions of Scripture." In the number for Oct. 
1823, of Sparks's Collections, he says : " Whiston tells 
us of his," Newton's, u profound knowledge of Church 
history during the three first centuries of the Christian 
era, and of his having been convinced by his study of 
this history, that the doctrine of the Trinity was introdu- 
ced into the Christian scheme many years after the time 
of the apostles. The tenor of Newton's writings is in 
accordance with this declaration, nor do they exhibit 
any evidence, that their author ever believed in a Trinity. 
The charge against Horsley of having suppressed his 
papers because they were adverse to this doctrine, has 
never been contradicted." 

You have mentioned to me, my dear father, the fact, 
that in Pliny's letter to Trajan, he testifies that the 
early Christians worshipped Christ as God. Now that 



36 plint's letter TO TRAJAN. 

letter conveys a very different impression to my mind ; 
and, it seems to me, is very far from proving that they 
made our Saviour equal with God. Bear in mind that 
it is the testimony of a man whose heart was filled with 
hatred against the Christians ; so much so that he says, 
"it has been a question with me very problematical, 
whether any distinction should be made between the 
young and the old, the tender and the robust ; whether 
any room should be given for repentance, &c." Now 
all that he testifies is this ; — and remember too that he 
is only giving the testimony of those who were in the 
act of retracting, and of course would do their utmost 
endeavor to please the enemies of Christianity — " that 
they were accustomed, on a stated day, to meet before 
daylight, and to repeat among themselves a hymn to 
Christ, as to a God, and to bind themselves by an oath, 
&c." Bear in mind also that the term worship, (for 
though it is not used in Pliny's letter, it is inferred from 
it,) was used in the early ages of the Church with as 
great latitude as the term God, and did no more always 
mean supreme homage than the term God always meant 
the supreme Being. Nebuchadnezzar " fell upon his 
face and worshipped Daniel," but not as the supreme 
God ; and the eastern sages worshipped the infant 
Jesus, but not as the supreme God. On the whole, 
this expression in Pliny's letter, on which so much re- 
liance is placed in all the ecclesiastical histories written 
by Trinitarians, goes very far towards convincing me 
that the early Christians did not regard Christ as equal 
with the Father. 

I have a few remarks to make in regard to the gos- 



st. john's gospel. 37 

pel of John. It is generally supposed that the apostle 
John wrote his gospel to supply what had been omitted 
by the other evangelists. He could not have written 
it to prove the human nature of our Lord ; that was a 
self-evident truth. Nor could he have written it to prove 
his divine nature, for the drift and tenor of the book 
evidently implies an inferiority of some kind to the 
Father. If his main object was to prove that he had two 
natures, it is strange that he pays so little attention to it. 
If that were his object, would he not, as a man of com- 
mon sense, much more as a man inspired by God, have 
so announced it, that, at least, the proposition could be 
stated in his own words — not by taking detached por- 
tions of the book, laying them together, and inferring 
what his object was — but by the clear, explicit, unques- 
tionable statement of the doctrine which he was writing 
a book to establish. It appears plain to me, that, his 
object was to prove the divinity of the mission of his 
beloved master ; that he came from God with full power 
and authority to establish a new dispensation — to 
create all things new. And this view throws a flood of 
light upon the whole book, especially upon the fourteen 
first verses, which can thus be explained in several ways 
without a resort to the perplexing and impossible ideas 
of three perfect beings equal to one perfect being ; or 
of two incompatible natures, with different perceptions, 
existing in one of those beings. For it is only on this 
hypothesis that the declaration of Christ respecting the 
day and the hour which no man knew, neither the Son 
— and several other declarations — can be explained 
without impeaching the veracity of our blessed Lord, 
4 



38 st. john's gospel. 

in whom was no sin, neither was guile found in his 
mouth. But if the divine and human will of our Saviour 
were one and the same, and the will of the three per- 
sons in the Trinity — of whom he was one — was one 
and the same, Christ virtually said, I seek not mine own 
will, but the will of myself, &c. In fact, just try to 
read the New Testament, with this idea, which grows 
naturally out of Trinitarianism, in the mind, and you 
will see what sad confusion it makes. May the Holy 
Spirit guide us into all truth. 



LETTER IV. 



CONNECTION OF DOCTRINES. 

Mv dear Father: 

I am very well aware that you speak correctly when 
you say, " Neither the tenets you have renounced, nor 
those you have embraced, stand alone." u They con- 
stitute," you remark, "not only very material parts, 
but perhaps even bases of systems of belief, which 
diverge farther and farther from each other the more 
they are carried in detail to their respective and very 
different results. ' By their fruits ye shall know them,' 
is a rule, not only for judging persons, but single tenets 
and systems. And every single tenet, especially on the 
momentous points your letter embraces, has and must 
have a momentous connection with and influence upon 
other tenets. Human depravity, its origin, nature and 
extent ; regeneration and its constituents ; justification, 
in what it consists, and on what it rests ; and indeed, 
every important doctrine, almost without exception, will 
be materially, if not fundamentally affected. Until you 
have had time to contemplate these results, and to as- 
certain their connection, and the action and reaction of 



40 ALWAYS AN INQUIRER. 

doctrines upon each other, will it not be better still to 
consider yourself an inquirer, and still, when } 7 ou have 
occasion to speak on the subject, to announce yourself 
such ? " 

Before I proceed to reply to this extract, my dear 
father, allow me to thank you, from the depths of an 
overflowing heart, for the tone of serious mildness and 
charity which characterizes your management of my 
peculiar case. Rest assured, that every word and 
letter which comes from your pen has infinitely more 
weight with me than those furious denunciations which 
give evidence of a zeal that is not according to know- 
ledge. You request me to consider myself " an inqui- 
rer." I do, my father, consider myself an inquirer ; 
and shall always do so while I live. That is to say, 
while my mind may be fully satisfied upon any given 
point, 1 shall always be ready to hear reasons for a dif- 
ferent opinion, and to embrace and proclaim such an 
opinion when those reasons satisfy my mind. In the 
face of all the world, and in spite of the charges of 
" instability," and u love of excitement," and tc love of 
notoriety," which may be showered down upon me, I 
shall be ready to retract again my newly embraced 
opinions, when I see them to be unscriptural and un- 
tenable. 

I was in no special haste to avow my change of views ; 
but you must be aware that we cannot always choose 
our times and seasons, or control our circumstances. 
You must also be aware that the moment it became 
known to some of my friends that I was even exam- 
ining certain doctrinal points, all calm, unbiassed, sober 



COLLATERAL DOCTRINES. 



41 



investigation was at an end. I found it absolutely ne- 
cessary to acquaint my friends with the progress my 
mind had made — the conclusions to which I had 
arrived — the opinions I had adopted — and my reasons 
for those opinions. It has been for some time a sub- 
ject of remark that I did not join in singing the doxology, 
and I have been obliged to evade questions, and to 
smile at exclamations, because the proper time for ex- 
planation had not arrived. 

You speak of collateral doctrines and tenets which 
will be materially affected by my Unitarian views. But 
many of those doctrines, to which you allude, had passed 
in review before my mind, and had become materially 
modified long before my attention was turned to the 
great and distinguishing feature of Unitarianism — the 
absolute unity of God. It is a long time since my 
Calvinistic brethren, had they known my views, would 
have been willing to grant me the title of u Orthodox." 
But, after all, the great question is, do I believe in a 
trinity of persons in the Godhead, or am I a believer 
in the absolute unity of God, and the subordinate nature 
of his Son ? 

It is now two months or more since my mind has 

been entirely satisfied in regard to the one great point 

of difference between Trinitarians and Unitarians, and, 

though it should require years of prayerful study to 

arrive at satisfactory conclusions upon other doctrinal 

points, I should all those years be still a Unitarian, if I 

continued, as 1 now am, a believer in the absolute and 

unqualified unity of God. Therefore, when my friends 

seem to expect me to wait till I am entirely satisfied in 
4# 



42 THE GREAT POINT OF DIFFERENCE. 

regard to every point of doctrine, before I avow myself 
a Unitarian, I answer that this may be the work of a 
lifetime, and does not at all affect the question of my 
being, or not being, a Unitarian. It might as well be 
insisted upon that a man should arrive at complete per- 
fection, before he calls himself a Christian. I know 
that there are great differences of opinion among Uni- 
tarians, but so there are among Trinitarians ; some are 
high Calvinists, some are moderate Calvinists, and 
some are Arminians. 

The question with me, then, is, do I believe that 
there are three persons in one God, or do I believe 
that Jehovah is one, and one only ? Now I believe 
that he is strictly one, and it seems impossible that I 
can ever believe otherwise, when, to my mind, it is as 
plain as demonstration, that the contrary scheme in- 
volves a contradiction. I must be a Unitarian, or a 
Tritheist, which last I cannot be while I take the Bible 
for my guide. He is a Unitarian who rejects the 
Trinity ; and be his views of the atonement, of native 
depravity, of human ability, or inability, what they 
may, still he is a Unitarian ; he has gone over to one 
of the two great divisions of the Protestant world. If, 
therefore,* he is a Unitarian, and not a Trinitarian, he 
ought to be in the Unitarian, and not the Trinitarian 
church. 

You remark, cc it is but too evident that you have had 
before you the entire strength of one side of the ques- 
tion, &c." It may be that I have ; but you must bear 
in mind my declaration, that I was satisfied in regard to 
the undivided unity of God before I had read one single 



SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 43 

Unitarian work, except the New Testament ; which I 
now regard as the most powerful and convincing Unita- 
rian book in the world. When I make this declaration, 
I have a right to be believed ; and I leave it with you, 
who know, better than others can know, my attachment 
to the truth. I went to the Bible, divesting myself, as 
much as possible, of educational prepossessions ; and it 
was from that source my mind was satisfied. I read 
the New Testament day and night, with the concen- 
trated energies of my intellect, and rose up from the 
perusal a thoroughly convinced Unitarian. 

I think you are mistaken also, my dear father, when 
you assert that one side, meaning the Unitarian side, 
"has had immensely and almost overwhelmingly the 
advantage of the other." I should be inclined exactly 
to reverse the statement. As I have before remarked, 
I have always found the doctrine of the Trinity so per- 
plexing, that I have read over and over again all the 
arguments I could find in its favor, and no one but 
myself can know how I have struggled to continue a 
Trinitarian. 

Your letter goes on to say, u you ought also to con- 
sider the influence of your course upon others, upon the 
cause of religion, and upon your publications, especially 
the volume of poems entitled ' The Parted Family,' as 
well as upon the feelings and happiness of your friends. 
Not that any of these considerations, nor all of them, 
should suppress or seriously interfere with sincere 
inquiries after truth ; but only with an unnecessary or 
premature declaration, which may have a use made of 
it by others, you perhaps do not at all anticipate, the 



44 CIRCUMSTANCES CONSIDERED. 

occurrence of which you may afterwards deeply regret, 

when it may be too late to repair it We are all 

answerable for our influence, and though that fact should 
not, be suffered to render us insincere, nor to suppress 
needful or useful inquiry, yet it should modify, qualify, 
and regulate the degree and manner of our disclosure to 
others of the results to which we may have arrived. 
This is, perhaps, one of those cases in which he that 
believeth should not make haste. I fear that many 
may be driven from the Bible, through indifference or 
disrelish of its contents, when they learn that you, 
through the Bible, have arrived at your present con- 
clusions." 

Your remarks in regard to the importance of our in- 
fluence are just what they should be, and I trust will 
not be without their legitimate effect upon my mind. 
Yet I cannot hope that my friends will be able to ap- 
preciate fully the force and peculiarity of the circum- 
stances by which I am surrounded, inasmuch as they 
themselves — by their affection for me, their zeal for 
what they regard to be fundamental truth, and their 
opposition to what they deem fundamental error — cre- 
ate those very circumstances. A crisis has come when 
it is absolutely necessary for me most sacredly and 
vigilantly to guard the right of private judgment, and 
conscientiously and fearlessly to avow my honest opin- 
ions. These remarks are not called forth, my dear 
father, by anything which you have said or done. If all 
my friends had pursued the calm and consistent course 
which your example should have prompted, I should 
not now be obliged continually to defend myself from 



SCOTT AND NEWTON. 45 

charges which their own misguided zeal has brought 
upon me. 

I wish, my dear father, before I bring this letter to a 
close, to reply to a remark of yours which has given me 
some pain. " I deeply regret," you say, "to hear you 
speak in the manner you have done of such men as 
Scott and Newton." And further, in regard to Scott, 
you say, u I have concluded to make a remark or two 
on the apparent insincerity of Scott in not informing his 
readers of Whitby's change of views when he made 
quotations from his writings. I have usually considered 
Scott as so remarkably candid a writer, that I cannot 
have him reflected on without defending him where I 
find he is defensible. Scott quoted, I must presume, 
just as any one would do, from a book containing what 
he considered correct and valuable sentiments. I pre- 
sume he meant neither to proclaim nor conceal the 
system embraced by Whitby, but to exhibit his argu- 
ment, leaving his readers to judge of its conclusiveness, 
as well as of where it might be found." 

If I have done Dr. Scott injustice, I am truly sorry 
for it ; I meant not to speak disrespectfully of such a 
man ; and in regard to Sir Isaac Newton,* I gave no 
opinion of my own, but merely mentioned where his 
opinions might be found, and then quoted what Pro- 
fessor Sparks had said in regard to the same subject. 

* Since the above was written, it has occurred to me that per- 
haps you allude to the Rev. John JNewton ; for I recollect saying 
to you that I thought the influence of his high Calvinistic views 
had operated most injuriously upon the sensitive mind of the un- 
fortunate Cowper. 



46 SCOTT AND NEWTON. 

I will now say, however, with all due modesty, that it 
seems to me that no one can read his u Historical 
Account of two Corruptions of Scripture," without 
believing him to have been a Unitarian ; but different 
minds are differently constituted.* 

* See Appendix I. 



LETTER V. 



INVESTIGATION NO CRIME. 
My dear Father : 

I am rejoiced to find that you do not, as some of 
my friends do, complain of me for having presumed to 
investigate opinions, when doubts of their truth had 
found their way into my mind. I was sure it would 
be so. I knew too well the remarkable honesty of 
your mind, to fear, upon that particular ground, your 
displeasure ; and I am very much pleased to find I did 
not mistake you. In your letter the following passage 
occurs, and I thank you for it from my heart. You 
say, u I am, my daughter, not at all dissatisfied with 
you for inquiring after Truth, and embracing it where- 
ever you find it ; and you have an intellect that can 
distinguish between logic and sophistry." You then 
add, " But if such texts as those to which I have 
referred you can be logically disposed of, I wish to see 
the way in which such a work can be accomplished." 
Before this time you have received the letter in which 
I give my interpretation of those texts. 

You speak of a remark I have made in regard to 
you, as though you feared it might be misunderstood ; 



48 NOBLE SENTIMENTS. 

and that some persons might think it argued an indiffer- 
ence, on your part, in regard to matters which I know 
you deem of vital importance. But I will let you 
speak for yourself. u You have made an observation," 
you say, u something like this, that I was not affected, 
as all your other relatives are, in view of the disclosures 
you have made concerning what is passing in your mind. 
This is true, however, I think, only in one particular. 
Perhaps all the rest are regretting that you are pursuing 
your present course of inquiry — that you are examin- 
ing subjects, and reading books, with which they might 
prefer you should not meddle — into w T hich they had 
rather you would not look. So far as this single 
particular is concerned, I eft not feel thus. I am 
quite willing you should inquire after Truth, and em- 
brace it wherever you may find it, though it counteract 
the whole current of your former thoughts, and over- 
turn the whole fabric of your former views. I would 
hope you have a mind capable of distinguishing truth 
from falsehood, and argument from sophistry ; and I 
hope that you have a candor and impartiality that will 
suffice to secure you from the wiles and fascinations of 
error, and an experience of grace in the heart that will 
preserve you from going far, and long, and fatally 
astray." These are noble views and sentiments, my 
father, worthy of a man, worthy of a Christian, worthy 
of you, and of your honest and noble soul. Such 
sentiments must secure the approbation of every candid 
and conscientious mind. 

I wish I could convince my relatives and friends, 
and yourself in particular, that I have not been entirely 



PATERNAL FAITHFULNESS. 49 

unmindful of that caution which it is so important at all 
times to observe, but most especially when we are 
about to take a momentous step, and to assume a new 
position. I will, however, bear witness to the fact 
that you have again and again, in the most solemn and 
urgent manner, lifted up your kindly warning voice, and 
advised continually the most cautious deliberation. At 
the risk of placing myself in an unamiable light before 
the public, — for I cannot and will not explain all the 
peculiar circumstances which have rendered necessary 
what has seemed to be a premature disclosure of my 
change of views, — at the risk, I repeat, of placing 
myself in an unamiable attitude, I will do all I can to 
exonerate you, my dear father, from the smallest share 
of blame in this matter ; and I hereby declare that 
you have done all that paternal faithfulness could do, 
to hold me back from what you conceived to be the 
brink of a dangerous precipice. No one can read what 
you have written to me on this subject, without feeling 
and acknowledging that you have done your duty faith- 
fully as a Christian parent, and a Christian minister. 
But, to make the point still more sure, I will here 
quote from your letters some of the warnings of which 
I have spoken. 

In speaking of my present position, you say : — "It 
is a slippery road, and you will need to tread it with 
great care, caution, and prayer, or, ere you are aware, 
you may find yourself at an awful remove from the ark 
of safety. I feel no disposition to discourage you 
from a simple, sincere, and prayerful inquiry after 
Truth, but do not be too rapid in its discovery, espe- 
5 



50 CAUTION RECOMMENDED. 

cially not too rapid in announcing or acting upon your 
discoveries. Recollect, these views are new, and 
much of their interest may arise from their novelty.*' 
In another place you say : — u I would guard your 
imaginative mind and buoyant feelings against the dan- 
gers that may arise from the relief and happiness you 
have spoken of, in connection with the new views 
which have entered into your mind. Do not infer that 
you are certainly right, merely from that circumstance. 
I want you to have a cheerful religion, provided it is at 
the same time a safe and sound one." Again, you 
write : — "I wish you to practise no disguise nor 
insincerity. But I renew my urgent advice to you, on 
your account as well as on ours, not to be in haste. 
If your new apprehensions are well founded, nothing 
will be lost by deliberation, — by taking time to 'prove 
all things,' that you may ( hold fast' only to 'that 
which is good.' " 

This is excellent advice, my dear father, and most 
gladly would I have satisfied my friends in regard to 
the time when my change of views should be made 
known. Indeed, I did not expect, formally, to make 
them known at all. I did not consider myself of con- 
sequence enough to render such a course necessary. 
If the u orthodox " community would have suffered 
me quietly to follow the dictates of my conscience, 
they should never have heard a word from me in re- 
gard to myself and my concerns. But strangers and 
friends have been pleased to interest themselves most 
extensively and diligently in my case, and it is their 
fault, and not mine ; that any publicity at all has been 



REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES. 51 

given to the matter. I have had no choice given me, 
I have been the victim of uncontrollable circumstances. 
The time came when I was obliged to make known, to 
my relatives at least, the process through which my 
mind was passing. And I have been blamed for not 
making it known, at least to you, before. I have been 
charged with showing disrespect to you, my father, 
because I did not from the first reveal to you the 
doubts which had entered my mind. Such a charge 
wrings my heart, and pains me more than I can ex- 
press. Perhaps my silence was an error of judgment, 
it certainly was not one of intention. If I have done 
wrong in this thing, I ask your forgiveness, and I pray 
also for the forgiveness of my Heavenly Father. 

If I could have confided my case to you alone, as 
perhaps I ought to have done, God knows how joyfully 
I would have done it, and how much it would have 
lessened the fearful weight of responsbility which op- 
pressed me when I was groping my way alone. But I 
was, and still am, under the impression that it was best 
for me to study the New Testament in the solitude of 
my chamber ; and before I had got entirely through 
the Gospel of John, I found myself, in regard to the 
nature of Christ, firmly on Unitarian ground. Then, 
after a good deal of thought, I sat down, and wrote 
the letter announcing to my mother and yourself my 
change of views, intending to hand it to you at the first 
suitable opportunity. That opportunity was not long 
in presenting itself. The fact soon became known to 
most of my relatives, but there were some circumstances 
which had caused such a fact to be suspected for some 



52 REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES. 

time. One of these was my silence for several Sab- 
baths during the singing of the doxology, which, as I 
was a prominent member of the choir, could not but 
be observed. As soon as my change of sentiments 
became known, a storm arose, and burst upon my 
head, such as I have never before experienced, and hope 
never to experience again ; and it immediately became 
necessary for me to act with decision and indepen- 
dence, or lose what I prize above all other things, my 
own self-respect^ and the approbation of my conscience. 
This is but a glance at the state of things which has 
rendered it necessary for me to take a decided stand, 
and assert those natural rights which belong to every 
individual, and which it is the sacred duty of every 
one jealously and vigilantly to protect. There are 
other circumstances connected with this subject, which, 
as I have said before, I will not name. 

Not only, my dear father, have you urged me to 
practise caution, but you have faithfully portrayed the 
responsibility of my position, and the consequences 
which may result from my change of views. On this 
point you thus write : — "The views you have for- 
merly expressed, the course you have pursued, the 
reputation you have acquired by your publications, 
the position you have occupied, and do occupy in 
this community, and your relation to myself, whose 
position for upwards of twenty years was still more 
prominent, place you in circumstances of weighty and 
peculiar responsibility." Again, after speaking of the 
tc spirit that lives and breathes — that burns and glows " 
in the volume of poems from my pen, called " The 



EXHIBITION OF CONSEQUENCES. 53 

Parted Family," you ask, " Are you aware that an 
entire change in the current of your thoughts and feel- 
ings may be the result of the new tide that has begun to 
set in upon them ? Have you renounced, or do you 
think of renouncing the sentiments and exercises that 
run through the interesting volume from your pen that 
has carried rich consolation to so many hearts ? " 

To these questions I answer, that I am by no means 
prepared to renounce "the sentiments and exercises"* 
which that volume contains. I have not renounced my 
confidence in God, nor in his Son, Jesus Christ. The 
words of consolation which fell from my Master's lips 
are as precious to me as ever, and would, I am confi- 
dent, prove now, as they did then, amply sufficient to 
bear me triumphantly through any scene of sorrow 
through which I might be called to pass. 

I will now bring this letter to a close, hoping and 
believing that what I have recorded here will abun- 
dantly prove to all who may peruse these pages, that 
nothing on your part has been left undone to deter me 
from pursuing the path which you deem a wrong and 
a dangerous one. 

* If any one thinks that in consequence of becoming a Unita- 
rian, the " sentiments and exercises " of the Christian heart must 
be renounced, I ask him to read candidly and carefully the Ser- 
mons of Consolation, by Dr. Greenwood, and he will see in what 
way and to what extent Unitarian Christians are comforted by 
their religious faith. 



5* 



LETTER VI. 



REMARKS UPON HONESTY, 

My dear Father : . 

You speak like yourself, and like an honest man, 
who is " the noblest work of God," when you say, 
u I vastly prefer an honest Unitarian, who is so from 
conviction, however mistaken and even dangerous I may 
regard his sentiments, to men of pretended and even 
boasted orthodoxy, who hesitate not at prevarication, 
and even direct falsehood." And yet, dear father, it 
almost seems to me, that in your anxiety lest I should 
go too far easily to retrace my steps, even if I wished 
to do so, you are advising me to a course, which, under 
other circumstances, you would not consider exactly 
open or honest. Let me quote your words. In refer- 
ence to the metrical doxologies you ask, " Is there no 
sense, no consistent and proper sense, in which you can 
say or even sing c three in one.' Must you necessarily 
carry in your mind the idea of three objects of wor- 
ship ? " In answer to these questions I will reply that 
there is a sense, in which I believe in a Trinity. I be- 
lieve that the Father manifests himself to the world 
through the Son, and operates upon the hearts of men 



THE TRINITARIAN DOXOLOGY. 55 

by the agency of his Holy Spirit. In this sense I can 
say " three in one." But this is not exactly to the 
point. T cannot sing the doxology because it distinctly 
represents these three as one in ancther sense — as three 
persons in one God — each as God, and the three as 
one God. The singing of the Trinitarian doxology is the 
distinguishing mark of a Trinitarian Church — a con- 
cise and regularly repeated confession of faith — the 
Shibboleth of Trinitarianism. Until it shall be gener- 
ally known that I am a Unitarian, and that when I sing 
the doxology I give to it a Unitarian construction, I 
see no possible way in which I can honestly use it. 
You have taught me, my father, to be honest and inde- 
pendent. It is from you that I have learned with 
Christian boldness to assert and defend what I believe 
to be the truth, and I know you would not have me act 
otherwise. In endeavoring to persuade me that I can 
still sing the doxology, your only object is to deter me 
from exciting general remark by ceasing now to do 
what I have always hitherto done ; but I cannot consci- 
entiously do it, and I know that you would not wish 
me to silence the clamors, or even the whispers of con- 
science. You would be gratified, 1 have no doubt, and 
so would I, if I could perfectly agree with you in senti- 
ment ; but as long as I cannot do so, I know you would 
prefer that I should be honest, and say so. u God's 
truths," as you so sweetly and so truly say, tc whatever 
on examination they may be found to be, are c the 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever ; ' whatever may 
be the contradictions, inconsistencies, and even the 
immoralities of those who profess to embrace them. 



56 THE UNITARIAN HYMN BOOK. 

To the law and to the testimony we must continually 
resort, saying, speak Lord, for thy servant heareth." 
Yes, my dear father, that is the true Christian spirit, 
a spirit of filial reverence for God and for his word ; 
and if I ever hereafter discover that I have mistaken 
the teachings of that word, I again honestly declare that 
no worldly reproach, no bitter taunts, no charges of in- 
stability or love of notoriety, will deter me from con- 
fessing my mistakes and errors, and acknowledging 
what I believe to be truth. If I can find hereafter that 
in giving up the faith of my fathers, I have gone astray, 
in the face of an assembled, mocking, jeering world, 
I should not hesitate to retrace my steps.* 

But I will introduce another subject. You appear 
to feel exceedingly dissatisfied with the alterations 
which have been made by Unitarians in the psalms and 
hyms of Dr. Watts. " There are several important 
topics," you remark, upon which the hymn-book you 
have examined, u is deplorably deficient." And you 
add, that c * in several instances they have so altered 
Watts, as to have weeded out portions and sentiments 
which he regarded as among the most vital and valuable. 
Unless," you observe, ' ■ since he exchanged earth for 
Heaven, he has greatly altered opinions familiar and 
precious to him in this world, I am inclined to think 
that, could he now rise from his bed of dust, he would 
loudly complain of and protest against the use they 
have made of the pruning knife." 

It is asserted, my dear father, that before u he ex- 
changed earth for Heaven " he had materially altered 

* See Appendix K. 



DR. WATTS A UNITARIAN. 57 

opinions once " familiar and precious to him." The 
proof upon this subject I have found in a condensed 
form in Sparks' s Inquiry, and shall quote at large what 
he says upon the subject. I leave it to your candor 
to decide with how much truth the assertion is made ; 
and if it can be proved to your satisfaction that Watts 
was himself desirous of making alterations in his hymns, 
you will not be so apt to find fault with those who have 
done it for him. The quotation from Professor Sparks 
is as follows : — 

u A letter is extant which was written by the Rev. 
Samuel Merivale to Dr. Priestley, in which the senti- 
ments of Dr. Lardner on the subject of Watts's opin- 
ions are expressed in the most unequivocal terms. In 
conversation with Mr. Merivale, as stated in the letter, 
this great man observed : ' I think Dr. Watts never was 
an Arian, to his honor be it spoken. When he first 
wrote of the Trinity, I reckon he believed three equal di- 
vine persons. But in the latter part of his life, and before 
he was seized with an imbecility of his faculties, he was 
a Unitarian. How he came to be so, 1 cannot cer- 
tainly say ; but I think it was the result of his own 
meditations on the Scriptures. He was very desirous 
to promote that opinion, and wrote a great deal upon 
the subject.' 

u After this conversation, Mr. Merivale, wishing to 
obtain further information respecting Watts's unpublish- 
ed papers, wrote a letter of inquiry to Dr. Lardner, 
from whom he received the following reply : — 

u ' I question whether you have any where in print 
Dr. Watts's last thoughts upon the Trinity. They were 



58 DR. WATTS A UNITARIAN. 

known to very few. My nephew, Neal, an understand- 
ing gentleman, was intimate with Dr. Watts, and often 
with the family where he lived. Sometimes in an eve- 
ning, when they were alone, he would talk to his friends 
in the family of his new thoughts concerning the person 
of Christ, and their great importance ; and that, if he 
should be able to recommend them to the world, it 
would be the most considerable thing that ever he per- 
formed. My nephew, therefore, came to me and told 
me of it, and that the family was greatly concerned to 
hear him talk so much of the importance of these sen- 
timents. I told my nephew, that Dr. Watts was right 
in saying they were important, but I was of opinion 
that he was unable to recommend them to the public, 
because he had never been used to a proper way of 
reasoning upon such a subject. So it proved. My 
nephew being executor, had the papers, and showed me 
some of them. Dr. Watts had written a good deal, 
but they were not fit to be published. Dr. Watts's 
Last Thoughts were completely unitarian.'* 

" These facts," continues Professor Sparks, u are too 
plain and conclusive to need comment. They rest on 
the authority of Lardner, and they could not rest on a 
higher. He barely stated what he saw and knew. Prove 
Lardner to have been guilty of a deliberate falsehood, 
or mistaken in a case where he had every possible op- 
portunity of knowing the truth, and you will invalidate 
his testimony. Till this be done, no one can rightfully 
refuse his assent to the position it establishes ; which is, 

* See the whole of Mr. Merivale's letter in Belshara's Memoirs 
of Lindsey, p. 216. 



DR. WATTS A UNITARIAN. 59 

that the unpublished papers of Watts clearly showed 
him to have been a Unitarian. 

" But we need not recur to unpublished writings. 
Enough may be found in print to convince us, that he 
was not a Trinitarian, whatever else he may have been. 
In his Solemn Address to the Deity he speaks as follows : 
{ Dear and blessed God, hadst thou been pleased, 
in any one plain Scripture, to have informed me which 
of the different opinions about the holy trinity, among 
the contending parties of Christians, had been true, thou 
knowest with how much zeal, satisfaction and joy, my 
unbiassed heart would have opened itself to receive and 
embrace the divine discovery. Hadst thou told me 
plainly, in any single text, that the Father, Son, and 
Holy Spirit, are three real distinct persons in the di- 
vine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewil- 
dered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so 
many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of 
men, instead of divine doctrine ; but I should have 
humbly and immediately accepted thy words, so far as 
it was possible for me to understand them, as the only 
rule of my faith. Or hadst thou been pleased to ex- 
press and include this proposition in the several scattered 
parts of thy book, from whence my reason and con- 
science might with ease find out, and with certainty 
infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all 
my reasoning powers, with their utmost skill and ac- 
tivity, to have found out this inference, and engrafted it 
into my soul. 

" ' But how can such weak creatures ever take in so 
strange, so difficult, and so abstruse a doctrine as this, 



60 DR. WATTS A UNITARIAN. 

in the explication and defence whereof, multitudes of 
men, even men of learning and piety, have lost them- 
selves in infinite subtleties of disputes, and endless mazes 
of darkness. And can this strange and perplexing 
notion of three real persons going to make up one true 
God, be so necessary and so important a part of that 
Christian doctrine, which, in the Old Testament and the 
New, is represented as so plain and so easy, even to 
the meanest understandings ? ' 

"Three things," observes Mr. Sparks, u are obvi- 
ous from these extracts. First, that Watts did not be- 
lieve the Trinity, as usually understood, to be ' plainly 
taught in any single text ;' secondly, that in his mind 
it was not so expressed in the Scriptures at large, as to 
be intelligible to c reason and conscience ; ' and thirdly, 
that the c strange and perplexing notion of three real per- 
sons going to make up one true God,' is not a 'neces- 
sary and important part of the Christian doctrine,' what- 
ever may be thought of its reality. Is there a Trinitarian 
of the present day, who will assent to either of these 
propositions ? " 

Mr. Sparks goes on to give extracts from Dr. Watts's 
own writings, w T hich, I think fully prove him to have 
been a Unitarian when he wrote them, and they were 
written long after his psalms and hymns. The extracts 
are too long to be inserted here, but if you are curious 
upon the subject, you can consult the work of Profes- 
sor Sparks, called An Inquiry into the comparative 
moral tendency of Trinitarian and Unitarian Doc- 
trines ; and in the chapter entitled Sentiments and 
Morals of English Unitarians, you will find all that 



DR. WATTS A UNITARIAN. 61 

he says in regard to Dr. Watts and others. But I in- 
tend, though I cannot quote the whole, still to give 
some further extracts. 

u We have yet a testimony," says Sparks, " from 
Dr. Watts's own mouth. In a letter to the Rev. Dr. 
Colman of Boston, written in 1747, he speaks as follows. 
6 1 am glad my book of Useful Questions came safe 
to your hand. I think I have said everything concern- 
ing the Son of God, which Scripture says ; but I could 
not go so far as to say, with some of our orthodox di- 
vines, that the Son is equal with the Father ; because 
our Lord himself expressly says, The Father is greater 
than I.'* Shall we still persist," inquires Mr. Sparks, 
with good reason, " Shall we still persist, that Dr. 
Watts was a Trinitarian, and that when he said the 
Father and Son are not equal, he meant directly the 
contrary ? " 

We now come to the subject of Dr. Watts's Psalms 
and Hymns. In regard to these, Mr. Sparks says : 
u They certainly contain sufficient evidence that he 
was a Trinitarian when he wrote them, but we know 
his mind was not stationary, for he afterwards ' thanked 
God, that he had learned to retract his former senti- 
ments, and change them, when, upon stricter search and 
review, they appeared less agreeable to the divine 
standard of faith.' Now we have already seen, that 
this w 7 as the case in regard to the Trinity ; and you are 
doubtless not ignorant of the fact, that he was desirous 

* Memoirs of Dr. Watts, Appendix, p. 19. The original of this 
letter 1 believe is retained among the files of the Massachusetts 
Historical Society. 

6 



62 WATTS'S PSALMS AND HYMNS. 

long before his death of suppressing or altering parts of 
his Psalms and Hymns, but was prevented by circum- 
stances wholly beyond his control." 

" Mr. Tompkins had very freely pointed out to him 
the impropriety of sanctioning with his name doxolo- 
gies to the Trinity, and especially to the Holy Spirit, 
since he had declared his belief, that the Spirit was not 
a separate being, and that such ascriptions of praise 
were not authorized in Scripture. In reply, Dr. 
Watts writes : ' I freely answer, I wish some things 
were corrected. But the question with me is this. As 
I wrote them in sincerity at that time, is it not more for 
the edification of Christians, and the glory of God, to 
let them stand, than to ruin the usefulness of the whole 
book, by correcting them now, and perhaps bring fur- 
ther and false suspicions on my present opinions ? Be- 
sides, I might tell you, that of all the books I have 
written, that particular copy is not mine. I sold it for 
a trifle to Mr. Lawrence near thirty years ago, and his 
posterity make money of it to this very day, and I can 
scarce claim a right to make any alteration in the book, 
which would injure the sale of it.'* And again, he 
replied to Mr. Grove, who suggested alterations, that 
c he should be glud to do it, but it was out of his power, 
for he had parted with the copy, and the bookseller 
would not suffer any such alterations.' These testimo- 
nies are enough to show whv Watts should desist from 
an attempt to make such alterations, as his change of 
sentiments would seem to require. At least they are 
such reasons as he thought satisfactory." 

* Memoirs of Dr. Watts, Appendix, p. 144 ; as quoted from 
Palmer. 



WATTs's PSALMS AND HYMNS. 63 

But, my dear father, they would not, the first of 
them at least, satisfy me, nor, unless I am much mista- 
ken in my views of your character, would it satisfy 
you. It is about upon a par with the reason given by 
some of my friends why I should conceal my present 
opinions; namely, because the knowledge of such a 
change of sentiment would undo all the good which, 
by the blessing of God, I have ever been able to do by 
my writings. It sounds very much like advising me to 
do evil that good may come. 

But to return. "It is evident through the whole," 
says Sparks, "that Watts was searching for the best 
reasons to quiet his mind in a case of necessity. To 
alter his hymns was out of his power ; he regretted this 
misfortune, but as it was not to be remedied, he was 
willing to contemplate it in its most favorable aspect. 
The main thing to our present purpose is, that he ac- 
knowledged a desire to make alterations, and never in 
any shape defended the Trinitarian parts of his hymns. 
In fact, had he believed in these parts, the discussion 
could not have commenced." 



LETTER VII. 



AN EXPLANATION. 



My dear Father : 

In your last communication you say : c; Though 
somewhat doubtful, afteryour annunciation that you had 
settled two months ago the matter, which I supposed 
might still be in some degree in question, whether I 
had better resume my pen, I have notwithstanding done 
so, that 1 may have the satisfaction hereafter that will 
arise from the reflection of having done all in my power, 
not so much to influence and control your decisions, as 
to aid and direct your inquiries." 

I did not mean, my dear father, to express myself 
with arrogant confidence ; I was merely giving a reason 
why I called myself a Unitarian. I intended it as a 
reply to what you had said in regard to collateral doc- 
trines ; and T was endeavoring to establish the point, 
which was clear to my own mind, namely, that, what- 
ever might be my views upon other topics, while I 
believed in the absolute and unqualified unity of God, 
I was certainly a Unitarian ; and this point, I informed 
you, had been settled, in my own mind, for the space 
of two months or more. I am not so settled in any 



EARLY OPINIONS. 65 

opinion, that I am not willing to hear and candidly to 
weigh any arguments which may be presented for a dif- 
ferent belief. 

You say, " it is but too evident that you have had 
before you the entire strength of one side of the ques- 
tion, the ablest productions of the most powerful minds 
which have been embarked in this discussion. So far, 
at least, as human authors have been your resource, one 
side has had immensely and overwhelmingly the advan- 
tage of the other. If your mind had not been made 
up, as you seem to say it has, I should like you to have 
read Dr. Miller's Letters on Unitarianism, and Pro- 
fessor Stuart's Letters to Dr. Channing. In the former 
of these, I am inclined to think, you will meet with a 
different exhibition of the opinions of early and primi- 
tive Christians, from that to which you have been 
recently listening, and to which you have, perhaps, 
acceded as correct." 

You have accordingly, since writing what I have 
quoted above, sent me a copy of Miller's Letters, 
which I have carefully read. I do not find that his 
M exhibition of the opinions of early and primitive 
Christians " at all overthrows the opinion which I have 
seen, as I think, established by other writers, — namely, 
that the early Fathers did not believe that the Trinity 
was taught in the Scriptures, and that those who be- 
lieved in and contended for this doctrine themselves, 
did not receive it as it is received at the present day. 
I have neither time nor strength to enlarge upon this 
point, but will only say, that Priestley's History of 
Early Opinions contains very satisfactory evidence in 
6* 



66 BIBLE PHRASEOLOGY. 

favor of my position, taken from the writings of the 
early Fathers themselves. 

You seem to be offended because Unitarians insist 
that such a doctrine as that of the Trinity ought to be 
explicitly stated in the Bible before we can be required 
to receive it, and much more, before we can regard it 
as fundamental. But if Unitarians feel in this way, as 
I confess they do, it is precisely as your favorite, Dr. 
Watts, felt. For proof of this, read again his prayer 
to the Deity, as quoted in my last letter. But I will 
quote from your letter. cc Unitarians are right," you 
observe, cc in saying that important doctrines will be 
frequently inculcated in the Scriptures, but," you ask, 
u are they not wrong in insisting that they must be pre- 
sented precisely in that form which they choose to pre- 
scribe, and that their phraseology must be used ? " 

Now this is by no means what Unitarians insist upon. 
They only insist that every fundamental doctrine must 
be capable of being stated in Bible phraseology. Any 
proposition, that is of merely human origin, and which 
cannot be explicitly stated in the words of the inspired 
volume, they would not consider authoritative ; let such 
a proposition emanate either from a Unitarian or a Trin- 
itarian source. 

Again, you say : " If worship to Christ is com- 
manded, — if men and angels are represented (and who 
can doubt that they are? ) as worshipping him, — if the 
titles, or the attributes, or the works ascribed to God 
are attributed to him, is it not tantamount to what they 
profess to want ? " 

I acknowledge that it might be so if the word wor- 



EXPLANATIONS. 67 

ship was always used in one sense, or if Trinitarians 
and Unitarians always used it in the same sense. But 
both of them acknowledge that in the Bible it is not 
always used in the same sense, that is, to denote supreme 
homage. There is then no other way than for each 
one to determine the sense in which the word is used in 
each particular instance, by other portions of Scripture 
about which there can be no doubt or difference of 
opinion. There remains, then, the second part of your 
question, " if the titles, &c." And here again we 
differ as to our premises, and cannot, of course, come 
to the same conclusion. Unitarians do not believe that 
the " titles," "attributes," or u works ascribed to God 
are attributed to Christ," in the same way or in the 
same sense. I will not enlarge upon this point here, 
because it has been fully discussed elsewhere. 

In another part of your letter you make the follow- 
ing inquiries. " Have you become so far acquainted 
with the productions of Unitarians, as to satisfy your- 
self that, the Trinity excepted, in all other respects 
they and we are, and ought to be, one people ? If you 
have, I most heartily rejoice at it, and I long to partake 
of the discovery. Do they believe, as you have been 
accustomed to hear from paternal and other lips, and 
accustomed, as I suppose, to believe and ^ee\ too, — do 
they believe in the lost and depraved condition of human 
nature, in the necessity and nature of the atonement, 
in the constituents and evidences of regeneration, in the 
cross of Christ, in self-denial and sacrifices, in non-con- 
formity to the world, and in heavenly-mindedness and 
other kindred subjects, as you have been accustomed 



68 CERTAIN INQUIRIES. 

to regard these matters ? If so, it is high time we 
should come together, high time for Trinitarians to 
confess that they have injured and slandered their Uni- 
tarian brethren. I, for one, shall have very much to 
repent of, to ask God's and their forgiveness for, and 
to forsake. And I am ready to do all these things, 
and to do so with cheerfulness, if any of them can con- 
vince me that I have wronged them. I have condemned 
them in days past, but not, as one of their writers ex- 
presses it, ' without a hearing,' nor c from the unfriendly 
representations of others.' If I have (and I certainly 
have) borne testimony against them, it has been c with 
a good conscience.' But I think I have ever been, 
and still am, ready to do them ample justice." 

My dear father, no one, who knows you as I do, 
would doubt this for a moment. And yet while men 
make their particular views of the doctrines taught in 
the Bible necessary to salvation, I do not see how those 
who differ in their views can come together. The Uni- 
tarian is willing to give the name of Christian to all who 
acknowledge Christ as their divinely commissioned 
Teacher and Head. cc We may safely affirm," says a 
Unitarian writer, "that the Scriptural sense of the 
term Christian, to which it might be wise for Christians 
to adhere, is neither more nor less than that of a disciple 
of Christ, — of one who, from a sincere belief in Christ's 
divine commission and Messiaship, chooses him for his 
instructor and his Lord." But others are not willing 
to use the term Christian as it is used in the Bible. 

In regard to the inquiries you make concerning Uni- 
tarians, namely, whether I have found out that there is 



THE DIFFERENCE. 69 

no difference between them and Trinitarians upon cer- 
tain doctrinal points, I answer that I think there is a 
great difference ; but differences are to be expected 
while men's minds are so variously constituted. Upon 
fundamental points, that is, those points, a belief in 
which is necessary to salvation, I do not think there 
can be any difference of opinion, because I believe 
they are so plainly revealed that no honest inquirer can 
mistake them. In regard to all the points mentioned 
by you in the extract I have made from your letter, 
Unitarians have a certain belief ; it is rather a different 
belief from yours, but they think, as you do of your 
views ; namely, that they are sustained by the Bible. 

" We think," says the Rev. Orville Dewey, "that 
they (that is, Trinitarians) ought to listen to us, when 
we make the plea, once their own," — he had been al- 
luding to the fact that all Protestants had once to defend 
themselves from charges of heresy ; — u that we be- 
lieve, according to our honest understanding of their 
import, all things that are written in the Holy Scrip- 
tures. 

M There is one circumstance which makes the state- 
ment of this defence peculiarly pertinent and proper 
for us. And that is, the delicacy which has been felt 
by our writers and preachers about the use of terms. 
When we found, for instance, that the phrase, ' Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost,' and that the words atonement, 
regeneration, election, with some others, were appro- 
priated by the popular creeds, and stood in prevailing 
usage, for orthodox doctrines, we hesitated about the 
free use of them. It was not because we hesitated 



70 EXTRACT FROM DEWEy's SERMONS. 

about the meaning which Scripture gave to them, but 
about the meaning which common usage had fixed upon 
them. We believed in the things themselves, we be- 
lieved in the words as they stood in the Bible, but not 
as they stood in other books. But, finding that, when- 
ever ice used these terms, we were charged, even as our 
great Master himself was, with ' deceiving the people,' 
and not anxious to dispute about words, we gave up the 
familiar use of a portion of the Scriptural phraseology. 
Whether we ought, in justice to ourselves, so to have 
done, is not now the question. We did so ; and the 
consequence has been, that the body of the people, not 
often hearing from our pulpits the contested, words and 
phrases, not often hearing the words propitiation, sacri- 
fice, the natural man, the new birth, and the Spirit of 
God, — hold themselves doubly warranted in charging 
us with a defection from the faith of Scripture." 

You will perhaps recollect, my dear father, express- 
ing your alarm, when I told you, after hearing a Uni- 
tarian sermon upon regeneration, that I thought it a 
faithful and Scriptural one, only I missed some of the 
technicalities, to which I had been accustomed. The 
substance, I thought, was there, though presented in a 
new shape ; the solid truth I discovered, though divested 
of its orthodox and popular dress and drapery. 

But further, after asserting the firm belief of Unita- 
rians in the Scriptures, Mr. Dewey says, " in the first 
place, we believe ' in the Father, and in the Son, 
and in the Holy Ghost.' This was the simple, prim- 
itive creed of the Christians ; and it were well if men 
had been content to receive it in its simplicity. As a 



THE ATONEMENT. 71 

creed, it was directed to be introduced into the form of 
baptism. The rite of baptism was appropriated to the 
profession of Christianity. The converts were to be 
baptized into the acknowledgment of the Christian 
religion; 'baptized into the name,' that is, into the 
acknowledgment l of the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost.'" 

After enlarging upon this baptismal form, he says, 
secondly, u We believe in the atonement. That is to 
say, we believe in what that word, and similar words, 
mean in the New Testament. We take not the respon- 
sibility of supporting the popular interpretations. They 
are various, and are constantly varying, and are without 
authority, as much as they are without uniformity and 
consistency. What the divine record says, we believe 
according to the best understanding we can form of 
its import. 

After declaring that Unitarians believe the death of 
Christ was an atonement, a sacrifice, a propitiation, 
he says : " But now the question is, what is an atone- 
ment, a sacrifice, a propitiation ? And this is the diffi- 
cult question, — a question to the proper solution of 
which much thought, much cautious discrimination, 
much criticism, much knowledge, and especially of the 
ancient Hebrew sacrifices, is necessary. Can we not 
1 receive the atonement,' without this knowledge, this 
criticism, this deep philosophy ? W'hat then is to be- 
come of the mass of mankind, of the body of Chris- 
tians ? Can we not savingly c receive the atonement ' 
unless we adopt some particular explanation, some 
peculiar creed, concerning it ? Who will dare to 



72 HUMAN DEPRAVITY. 

answer this question in the negative, when he knows 
that the Christian world is filled with differences of 
opinion concerning it ? . . . . The atonement is one 
thing ; the gracious interposition of Christ in our behalf; 
the doing of all that was necessary to be done, to pro- 
vide the means and the way for our salvation — this is 
one thing ; in this ice all believe. The philosophy, 
the theory, the theology (so to speak) of the atonement, 
is another thing." 

" In the third place," says he, u we believe in hu- 
man depravity ; and a very serious and saddening belief 
it is, too, that we hold on this point. We believe in 
the very great depravity of mankind, in the exceeding 
depravation of human nature. We believe that ' the 
heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately 
wicked.'" Then, after assenting to several of the 
strongest texts upon this point, he says : " We believe 
that this was not intended to be taken without qualifica- 
tions, for Paul, as we shall soon have occasion to 

observe, made qualifications First, it is not 

the depravity of nature, in which we believe. Human 
nature — nature as it exists in the bosom of an infant — is 
nothing else but capability ; capability of good as well 
as evil, though more likely, from its exposures, to be 
evil than good Secondly, it is not in the un- 
limited application of Paul's language, that we believe. 
When he said 'No, not one,' he did not mean to say 
that there was not one good man in the world. He 
believed that there were good men. .... Neither, 
thirdly, do we believe in what is technically called ' total 
depravity ' ; that is to say, a total and absolute destitu- 
tion of everything right, even in bad men." 



REGENERATION. 



" From this depraved condition, we believe, in the 
fourth place, that men are to be recovered, by a process, 
which is termed in the Scriptures, regeneration. We 
believe in regeneration, or the new birth. That is to 
say, we believe, not in all the ideas which men have 
affixed to those words, but in what we understand the 
sacred writers to mean by them. We believe that, 
' except a man be born again, he cannot see the king- 
dom of God ; ' that ' he must be new created in 
Christ Jesus ; ' that c old things must pass away, and 
all things become new.' W"e certainly think that these 
phrases applied with peculiar force to the condition of 
people, who were not only to be converted from their 
sins, but from the very forms of religion in which they 
had been brought up ; and we know indeed that the 
phrase 'new birth ' did, according to the usage of the 
language in those days, apply especially to the bare 
fact of proselytism. But we believe that men are still 
to be converted from their sins, and that this is a change 
of the most urgent necessity, and of the most unspeak- 
able importance 

" We believe, too, in the fifth place, in the doctrine 
of election. That is to say, again, we believe in what 
the Scriptures, as we understand them, mean by that 
word The truth is, that the doctrine of elec- 
tion is a matter either of scholastic subtilty, or of pre- 
sumptuous curiosity, with which, as we apprehend, 
we have but very little to do. Secret things belong to 
God. We believe in what the Bible teaches of God's 

infinite and eternal foreknowledge We believe 

in election, not in selection. We believe in fore- 
knowledge, not in fate 

7 



74 ON THE FUTURE STATE. 

" In the sixth place, we believe in a future state of 
rewards and punishments. We believe that sin must 
ever produce misery, and that holiness must ever pro- 
duce happiness But there has been that at- 
tempt to give definiteness to the indefinite language of 
the Bible on this subject, to measure the precise extent 
of those words which spread the vastness of the unknown 
futurity before us ; and with this system of artificial crit- 
icism, the popular ignorance of Oriental figures and 
metaphors has so combined to fix a specific meaning on 
the phraseology in question, that it is difficult to use it 
without constant explanation. c Life everlasting,' and 
' everlasting fire,' the mansions of rest, and the worm 
that never dieth, are phrases fraught with a just and rea- 
sonable, but, at the same time, vast and indefinite im- 
port We believe, then, in a heaven and a hell. 

We believe there is more to be feared hereafter than 
any man ever feared, and more to be hoped than any 
man ever hoped. 

c< Once more, and finally, we believe in the supreme 

and all-absorbing importance of religion The 

soul's concern is the great concern, &c." But I must 
bring these extracts to a close, for I find I cannot do 
justice to Mr. Dewey without occupying more space 
than my limits will allow. I must refer you to the work 
itself,* where you will find much that must interest you. 
It is a delightful book. I will only add, that the senti- 
ments contained in these extracts are such as I have 
met with in every Unitarian work which I have read. 

* Dewey's Controversial Sermons, published in 1840. 



LETTER VIII. 



INQUIRIES ANSWERED. 
My dear Father: 

I have arisen at the hour of four to indite a brief 
reply to that part of the letter you are writing me which 
has been received. I feel so much exhausted from the 
amount of reading and writing in which I have been 
engaged for the last two months, that my strength soon 
fails ; and therefore, my dear father, you must excuse 
me if I do not write as fully as you might expect or 
wish. In reply to the argument on your second page, 
commencing with — " what if they are worshipping 
three Gods," — let me refer you to an essay by James 
Foster, on u Fundamentals in Religion," contained in 
" Sparks's Collections " for May, 1S25. It conveys a 
better answer than I have ability or strength to give 
you. Again, you ask, " where have you seen a great 
many exemplary Christians, according to what you have 
been taught, and what you believed you had felt of vital, 
experimental Christianity ?" In this sense, in view of 
certain points of doctrine which I had been taught, and 
which I believed that every one must receive before he 
could be a Christian — I will answer, that I have not 



76 



MORALITY OF UNITARIANS. 



seen them. But I have long ago learned to judge of a 
tree by its fruits ; it is our only means of judging ; it 
is the rule which our Saviour has given us, and must 
therefore be a correct rule. In this sense I have seen 
them. When I behold a person doing justly, loving 
mercy, and, as it seems to me, walking humbly with 
God — wherever I can thus recognise what appears to 
me God^s image in my fellow creatures — my soul 
feels fellowship with such an one, however I may deem 
him mistaken in points of doctrine. It may be they 
are, as I have been, ignorantly wrong. Now it is con- 
ceded on all hands, so far as I have known — and I 
have heard the opinion often expressed by Trinitarians — 
that, as a body, the Unitarians are a remarkably moral 
people. * But, they say, that is their religion ; they 
cultivate a high tone of moral feeling. Well, all will 
be inclined to acknowledge that this elevated tone of 
morality is an excellent thing, so far as it goes. Now, 
when I hear them aver, and when I read from the 
works of all their writers to whose pages I can get 
access, that this morality is the fruit of a sincere and 
living faith — by living faith I mean a faith which brings 
forth fruit — in the Lord Jesus Christ as one who comes 
to them with an almighty commission ; with credentials 
from his Father and our Father, from his God and our 
God ; with the same authority as if Jehovah himself 
had appeared on earth ; I am ashamed and confound- 
ed that I have, without giving them even a hearing, 
without the slightest examination, been guilty of the 

* See Appendix L. 



INVOLUNTARY ERRORS. 77 

grossest injustice towards them. I am, I solemnly 
repeat it, ashamed and confounded ; may God forgive 
me. Such uncharitableness, however involuntary, the 
fruit of mistaken and narrow minded opinions, I feel 
has been a shade upon my character, a degradation to 
my soul ; and I bless God for my great deliverance. 

My first feeling, after reading some little tracts con- 
taining information concerning their faith, and written 
with a spirit of heavenly love and meekness, was an 
inexpressible relief to find I had been mistaken in regard 
to a numerous and respectable class of my fellow men ; 
that they were not, even in theory, what I had thought 
them ; and, though mingled it may be with self- 
upbraiding, a discovery like this cannot but be delight- 
ful, I will not merely say to any liberal and enlightened 
Christian, but to any humane mind, or human heart. 
You ask me, my dear father, if I now embody in what 
I term Christianity only the naturally amiable tempers 
and correct deportment of persons, who have no savor 
of devotion, who deny, and some of them even almost 
ridicule, that change taught by Christ to Nicodemus, 
and which I for a number of years have professed 
to believe in, and moreover to feel, not merely as an 
outward and moral, but as an inward, radical, and 
spiritual change. In answer to this I say no, my father. 
Those cannot be Christians who deny what Christ came 
to teach. Those are by no means my ideas of Chris- 
tianity ; and you will see, if you are willing to read 
what I send you, that these are not the views of Unita- 
rians. I will refer you now to the following articles. 

In u Burnap's Expository Lectures," the article on 

7# 



78 



UNITARIAN WRITINGS. 



" Saving faith in Christ ; " an article of Dr. Channing's, 
entitled " Objections to Unitarian Christianity con- 
sidered ; " the tract on Christian Salvation ; the article 
tc On the nature of a Heavenly Conversation," in the 
number of " Sparks's Collections " for May, 1825 ; 
the tract entitled " The Unitarian's Answer ;" the one 
entitled " The Doctrine of Religious Experience;" 
and " Mr. Whitman's Discourse on Regeneration." 

If, my beloved father, you should feel that by any 
step I may feel myself bound to take, I am showing you 
personal disrespect, such a fact would add exquisitely 
and infinitely to my sufferings, but it could not alter my 
views of duty. This matter is between me and my 
God ; and, at my age, and under my circumstances, I 
am responsible to God alone for my actions. As the 
Almighty sees my heart, he knows, my father, how I 
love and venerate you ; he sees that you are the apple 
of mine eye ; but, in a case like the present, prayer- 
fully considered under all its aspects, I will remember 
my Master's charge to his disciples, and call no man 
my father on the earth, for one is my Father, which is 
in Heaven. Matt, xxiii. 9. 

I have gathered the opinions of a great many Unita- 
rian writers from their books ; it is now my intention to 
hear the preaching of Dr. Gilman and such other Unita- 
rians as may fall in my way, that I may judge of his 
and their opinions for myself. I consider that I am 
acting for eternity, and 1 could tell you of feelings 
which ought to rejoice your heart ; but I forbear, being 
afraid that you will ascribe them all to the strength of 
what you deem my strange delusion. Perhaps my 



LINES ON LUKE XVIII. 29, 30. 79 

future life will prove, better than any thing I can say, 
whether the doctrines I now espouse will or will not 
bear fruit to the glory of God. I have decided to go 
on next Sabbath morning to the Unitarian Church, and 
have thought it honest and right to tell you so. 

I have read carefully, and, I would add, prayerfully, 
the books which you have placed in my hands ; but they 
have only served to strengthen me in the opinions I 
now hold. You will find in the two books — " Norton's 
Statement of Reasons," and " Burnap's Expository 
Lectures," — explanations of most of the texts you 
brought before my mind ; and I would remark that, I did 
not obtain those books till after my views were changed 
and my letters written. u May the grace of the Lord 
Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the communion of 
the Holy Ghost, be with us all." Amen. 



LINES ON LUKE XVIII. 29, 30. 

" There is no man that hath left house, or parents, or 
brethren, or wife, or children, for the Kingdom of God's 
sake, who shall not receive manifold more in this present 
time, and in the world to come life everlasting." 

Father ! I can leave them all, 
At my much loved Master's call ; 
He refused not, for my sake, 
Sorrow's bitter cup to take, 
That to me he might commend 
Love like thine, Almighty Friend ! 



80 LINES ON LUKE XVIII. 29, 30. 

He, who fainting thousands fed, 
Had not where to lay his head; 
He, of all thy sons the chief, 
Lived a life of pain and grief; 
He, the Lamb thou didst provide, 
Willingly — to save us — died. 

Come then, suffering ! Welcome scorn ! 
Doubly blest are they who mourn ! 
Blessed while on earth they roam — 
Blessed when they reach their home — 
Welcome, loneliness and grief! 
There's a hand can bring relief. 

Fear and doubt, away, away ! 
See ! the dawn of heavenly day 
Brightens in the eastern skies ! 
There, O let me fix mine eyes ! 
See ! that Sun brings perfect day ! 
Fear and doubt, away, away ! 



LETTER IX. 



AN OVERFLOW OF FEELING. 

My beloved Friend : 

I have received, perused, and reperused your affec- 
tionate letters, and thank you for them. They were 
dictated, I know, by the most ardent love for me, and 
zeal for the honor and glory of the dear Redeemer. 
But they are altogether an appeal to my feelings, and 
are founded, I think, upon incorrect premises. And I 
will tell you why I say so. You write thus : " Crushed 
and almost heart-broken, my beloved friend, I have just 
risen from my knees, where, if ever my soul was poured 
out in prayer, it has been now for you, that God would, 
in his great mercy, for his dear Son's sake, and especi- 
ally for your own soul's sake, even now arrest your 
hand before it tears the crown from the head of our 
glorious and exalted Saviour. O, how my heart clings 
to him when I see him thus sorely wounded in the house 
of his friends." My dear friend, the strength of your 
feelings has misled you. What an expression ! " Tears 
the crown ! " I speak the truth, and I weep while I 
write it, when I declare that I would sooner die than 
rob the blessed Saviour — my once crucified, but now 



82 LOVE TO JESUS CHRIST. 

risen and glorified Lord, my Advocate, my Inter- 
cessor with the Father — of one. particle of the honor 
and glory which is his due. Every word that the 
Bible speaks concerning him I believe to be true, I 
believe that u God hath highly exalted him, and given 
him a name which is above every name, that at the 
name of Jesus every knee should bow, and every 
tongue confess that He is Lord, to the glory of God 
the Father." I love my Lord and Master in sincerity 
and in truth — "whom having not seen, I love; in 
whom, though now I see him not, yet believing, I re- 
joice with joy unspeakable, and full of glory ." I go 
to the Father only through him, because I believe that 
He is u the way, and the truth, and the life," and that 
"other foundation can no man lay." And when I 
arrive at Heaven, which I shall certainly do if I heartily 
strive to do the will of my Father which is in Heaven, 

1 expect to unite with my dear sainted husband and 
son, and with "many angels round about the throne, 
and the beasts and the elders — ten thousand times ten 
thousand, and thousands of thousands — saying with a 
loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to re- 
ceive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, 
and honor, and glory, and blessing ! " We read in 

2 Pet. i. 17, that he " received from God the Father 
honor and glory, when there came such a voice from 
the excellent glory, (there is, we know, a glory that 
excelleth,) this is my beloved Son, in whom I am well 
pleased." Why may we not say to that Son of God, 
u Thou art worthy to receive, &c. ? " 

It is hard, my dear friend, to accuse me of tearing 



CHRIST A KING. 83 

the crown from my glorious Redeemer's head ; and 
yet I know that the expression is dictated by your love 
to that Redeemer, and so I freely forgive it. Aye, 
more ; I rejoice that you love him so well ; but do not 
take it for granted that I do not love him, because I 
cannot render him the supreme homage which I honestly 
think belongs to God alone. The crown is still upon 
his head ; he is at the head of the mediatorial king- 
dom, and will be there until that hour when " cometh 
the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom 
to God, even the Father, when he shall have put down 
all rule, and all authority, and power. For he must 
reign till he hath put all his enemies under his feet. 
The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For 
he hath put all things under his feet. And when he 
saith, all things are put under him, it is manifest that 
He is excepted, which did put all things under him. 
And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then 
shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put 
all things under him, that God may be all in all." It 
must take a very explicit statement of the doctrine that 
there are three equal persons in one God, to set aside 
a text so full, so unqualified, so clear as this ; given, as 
it seems to me, in consideration of our weakness and 
want of knowledge. 

My friend thinks that I have not acted with due 
respect to my beloved parents in not going to them at 
first with my doubts and fears. At first sight it may 
appear so, but I see from the manner in which my first 
communication, which I meant should be kind and 
respectful, has been received by you all, except my 



84 MISTAKES CORRECTED. 

father, that I was right to take the course I have. Now 
do not misunderstand me — I am a reasonable being — 
I feel that I have been an honest, sincere, and indus- 
trious inquirer after truth, notwithstanding the insinuation 
that I have gone with my doubts to "professed friends 
on the other side." I know you will believe me when 
T declare that this is not true. In the spirit and letter 
of the declaration, it is not true. In the solitude of my 
own chamber, the Holy Scriptures, my own mind, and, 
I trust, the Spirit of God, have done the work. You 
have not received my communication in anger, but has 
any one a right to take it for granted that I have relied 
on my own strength ; have been under individual influ- 
ence ; have been taken advantage of by Satan, or any 
other adversary ; have been given up to believe a strong 
delusion ; have tried to reason myself into a belief of 
Unitarianism ; have yielded to the pride of intellect ; 
have in heart wandered away from God ; have followed 
the leadings of my naturally proud and independent 
spirit ; have rejected a doctrine because it is incompre- 
hensible ? Have / ever made this last assertion ? Did 
I say I rejected the doctrine of the Trinity because it 
was incomprehensible ? No, dear friend, I have not 
said so. I have rejected it because I cannot find it in 
the Bible. If I could satisfy myself that it was there, 
I would instantly receive it, however incomprehen- 
sible.* 

Were I disposed to retort, I might say that those 

* The modern doctrine of the Trinity is, to me, so plainly a 
contradiction, that I deem it impossible it could be found in a 
revelation from God. 



HUMAN REASON. 85 

who receive the doctrine of the Trinity are the persons 
who are depending upon human reason. It appears to 
me they fall into two strange and opposite errors. 
They first construct the doctrine upon inference and 
human reason, and then prostrate reason to receive it. 
I do not take it for granted that those who differ from 
me must of necessity be wrong, and in a soul-ruining 
error ; I only say that I cannot see as they do. What 
fallible creature should dare to say that he knows he is 
right ? 

You all lay more stress upon the consequences of 
my change than upon anything else. Consequences 
should be considered fully, fairly, intently, and deliber- 
ately ; but are they of the first importance ? And are 
you sure that I Jose sight of them altogether ? I leave 
these questions with you ; your answer to them I know 
will be right. 

I wish you to place every argument before me ; I 
want to be tested ; I bless God for the late singular 
and providential occurrences in our immediate family 
circle ; they came just at the right time. These cir- 
cumstances, and a consideration of the consequences 
to which you have so feelingly and justly alluded, 
will doubtless lead me to caution ; but you must go 
further before I can give up my opinions. You must 
convince me that they are unscriptural and untenable, 
and I will honestly and instantly renounce them. But 
when all you say amounts to this, we are right, and 
you are wrong — you are blind, but we can see; I 
acknowledge that I am not in a fair way to be con- 
vinced. 

8 



86 TALENTS. 

My friend says : "I bless God that I have not 
talents which lead me to reject all that I cannot un- 
derstand." I have already said that this is not my 
reason for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, but I 
bless God that he has given me talents which render 
me capable of judging for myself what is revealed ; and 
for the right use of those talents I am accountable to 
God. I could comment on one or two texts in your 
letter — one of which is misquoted — and tell you in 
what light I view them, but you do not seem to wish 
any approach to argument, so I forbear. 

I believe that for a long time 1 have been a fol- 
lower of God, as a dear child, though not always a 
dutiful one, and often I have had occasion, like Peter, 
to weep bitterly over my sins. I believe that I have 
been in a doctrinal error all my life, but it was an 
involuntary one. I hope and believe that, as a true 
worshipper, I " worship the Father in spirit and in 
truth ; for the Father seeketh such to worship him." 
I believe that I am Christ's, and "Christ is God's." 
I believe that " we are not redeemed with corruptible 
things, as silver and gold, but icith the precious blood of 
Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot ; 
who verily was foreordained before the foundation of 
the world, but was manifest in these last times for us, 
who by him do believe in God, that raised him from 
the dead, and gave him glory, that our faith and hope 
might be in God." I believe that Jesus is gone into 
Heaven, and is "on the right hand of God, (how can 
he be God, and be also on God's right hand ?) angels, 
and authorities, and powers being made subject to him." 



EXPRESSION OF SENTIMENTS. 87 

My friend begs me not to attempt to shake the faith 
of others. My friend ought to know me better. They 
have their Bibles, and I have mine. If they and I fol- 
low the directions therein contained, we shall all arrive 
at Heaven, where we shall see the Saviour as he is, 
and be forever with the Lord. But sooner than feel 
that I am an object of suspicion and fear in this respect, 
I would prefer to exile myself to the ends of the world, 
and live and die alone. And this reminds me that my 
friend uses this expression, "now more alone, if you 
persist." "Persist" in what, my dear friend ? You 
have chosen an unfortunate word. It sounds as if you 
thought that I was merely taking this course because it 
was right in my own eyes. Is it wrong for me to " per- 
sist " in adhering to what are are my honest opinions'? 
But I meant principally to turn your attention to the 
word alone. If I persist, who will be most alone, you 
or I? I know you do not do me the injustice to 
believe that I am without natural affection, and all these 
expressions I overlook, regarding them as an evidence 
of your love, though I could not in candor do otherwise 
than mention them. Dear friend, I want your prayers ; 
I want your faithfulness ; I want every test which you 
can give me ; but judge not me, nor any one else, " that 
ye be not judged." 

O my Heavenly Father ! If I have done dishonor 
to thy beloved Son, in whom thou art well pleased, 
I beseech thee to convince me of it by the illuminating 
influences of thy Holy Spirit. Thy Son has taught us 
how to pray, and has told us that whatever we shall ask 
the Father in his name, he will do it — in thy Son's 



88 A PRAYER. 

name I ask thee for direction at this most momentous 
era of my life. And while I pray to be made meek 
and lowly of heart, I thank thee, that, as I humbly hope, 
thou hast not given me the spirit of fear, cc but of power, 
and of love, and of a sound mind." And may the 
talents which thou hast given me, be consecrated to 
thine honor and glory, and to the spread of the Redeem- 
er's kingdom ; these things I ask in thy dear Son's 
name. Amen and Amen. 



LETTER X. 



UNITARIANS DO NOT DENY CHRIST. 
My dear Sir, 



'5 



You profess to have taken your pen in hand out of 
personal regard and concern for me ; in this assertion I 
certainly believe you sincere, and therefore I thank you 
for your kind intentions. But your letter has been, on 
many accounts, very unsatisfactory and unpleasant. You 
take the broad ground that Trinitarians are the only 
believers in Christ's divinity and atonement. Now the 
truth or falsehood of this assertion depends entirely 
upon the ideas which are attached to the terms divinity 
and atonement. You use them in one sense, Unitarians 
in another ; and their sense is as correct to them as 
yours is to you. And you go on to say — u Some, it 
is clear, were foretold as to be distinguished by this 
trait — denial of the Lord; and denial of Him as 
having bought them. Can you think of a party to 
whom such a phrase is equally applicable as that of 
the Unitarians, if their leading tenets be false ? It does 
not say what men shall affirm, but only what they shall 
deny. Unitarianism is particularly distinguished, as you 
know, for its negations. It is not technically nor com- 
8* ' 



90 ADDITIONS TO TRUTH ERRORS. 

monly used to express what any body does believe, so 
much as what they do not believe. It, by the usage of 
all religious society, (?) means those who reject evan- 
gelical doctrine.* Here then is something of a prima 
facie reason to suspect that you may be going wrong in 
joining them.'' 7 

If, my dear Sir, Unitarians believe as much as the 
Bible reveals, they believe enough. This they profess 
to do. Jill additions to the doctrines taught in the 
word of God, are errors which ought to be abandoned ; 
and Unitarians cannot find the doctrine of the Trinity 
in the Bible, nor the doctrine of legal substitution, nor 
the other doctrines peculiar to Galvanism. So far as 
their system, in comparison with yours, is a system of 
negations, they rejoice in the fact ; because they believe 
that your faith is encumbered with doctrines of human 
invention, not sanctioned by the word of God. Bear 
in mind then, that their system is one of negations only 
when compared with your creed, and not when com- 
pared with the Bible. They have as much right to 
assert that their system is the scriptural one as you 
have ; and, as no human being is infallible, the question 
still remains a question, which each individual must de- 
cide for himself, according to his opportunity and ability 
to examine and understand the infallible word of God. 

But Unitarians by no means admit that they do not 
believe in Christ's divinity and atonement. It is true 
that their belief on these points is different from yours, 
but it is just as real and valuable. They believe in the 
divinity of the Son of God, because God gave to his 

* See Appendix, M. 



VIEWS OF ATONEMENT. 91 

Anointed his Spirit without measure.* They believe 
in his atonement, because it is declared that u God 
so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, 

* On this point one of them, the Rev. A. B. Muzzey, thus 
writes : " The popular theology tells us that Jesus Christ is ' both 
God and man,' that he has accordingly ' two distinct natures.' 
In one aspect, this representation is correct. It is true, that two 
natures, a human and a divine, met in our Saviour. But it is not 
true, that they constituted one being. Christ, the man, was not 
united with a Christ, who is God, but with God, a separate, inde- 
pendent being, one who, unlike himself, is eternal, omniscient, 
and almighty. He was in God, and God was in him. The apos- 
tle Paul incites the Christian to become a partaker of the divine 
nature. Christ, in this sense, did partake of the divine nature. 
God was manifested in him ; he was gifted with his Spirit with- 
out measure; it is his connection with God that makes him our 
Saviour ; destroy that, and we have no Saviour left. So is it that 
two natures met in Christ." The following remarks are from an 
article from the pen of Dr. Channing, entitled, " Objections to 
Unitarian Christianity considered." He says : " It is objected to 
us that we deny the divinity of Jesus Christ. Now what does this 
objection mean? What are we to understand by the divinity of 
Christ ? In the sense in which many Christians, and perhaps a 
majority, interpret it, we do not deny it, but believe it as firmly 
as themselves. We believe firmly in the divinity of Christ's mis- 
sion and office; that he spoke with divine authority, and was a 
bright image of the divine perfections. We believe that God dwelt 
in him, manifested himself through him, and communicated to 
him his Spirit without measure. We believe that Jesus Christ 
was the most glorious display, expression, and representative of 
God to mankind, so that in seeing and knowing him, we see and 
know the invisible Father ; so that when Christ came, God visit- 
ed the world, and dwelt with men more conspicuously than at any 
former period. In Christ's words we hear God speaking; in his 
miracles we behold God acting ; in his character and life we see 
an unsullied image of God's purity and love. We believe, then, 
in the divinity of Christ, as this term is often and properly used." 



92 ILLUSTRATION. 

that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." Nor do they deny the Lord as 
having bought them, any more than they deny that God 
redeemed the Israelites out of the hand of Pharaoh by 
providing the means for their escape. They believe 
that they are " bought with a price " — even the pre- 
cious blood of Christ, as a Lamb without blemish and 
without spot. They believe that the sinner is " recon- 
ciled to God by the death of his Son." And they 
believe with St. Paul, that if, when they were enemies, 
they were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, 
much more, being reconciled, they shall be saved by 
his life. I will give an illustration of my meaning. Sup- 
pose a civil community to be in a state of rebellion 
against their lawful sovereign. It would be just in that 
King to visit them with summary vengeance ; but he is 
a compassionate King, and is not willing that any should 
perish. After trying various means to reconcile them 
to his government, last of all he sends his Son ; saying, 
cc They will reverence my Son." The Son willingly 
undertakes this mission of mercy. It is the aim and 
object of his life to persuade the rebellious subjects of 
his kind and gracious Father to be reconciled to him, 
and submit themselves to his just and reasonable author- 
ity. Many and various are the proofs he gives them 
of his Father's long suffering and tender love ; and in 
his own person he gives them a wonderful example of 
filial veneration and obedience. Such an example of 
filial devotion, of patience under suffering, and of un- 
wearied compassion, the world has never seen. The 
same untiring love which fills the bosom of the King, 



ILLUSTRATION. 93 

his Father, dwells in his own. To these rebellious 
subjects he represents his Father as their Father, long 
suffering, slow to anger, ready, upon certain reasonable 
conditions, to forgive iniquity, transgression, and sin. 

Some are touched by this exhibition of his own and 
his Father's love, and willingly resign themselves to his 
authority, and follow his guidance ; for he comes with 
" all power " to fulfil the objects of his mission. But 
the great majority reject his authority, and will not 
even credit the genuineness of his credentials. The 
more he presses his claims upon them, the more vio- 
lent becomes their opposition. Finally, their madness 
and fury rise to its height, and they put to death, in the 
most shameful and painful manner, the only and well 
beloved Son of their merciful King — him who came 
only to do them good, and reconcile them to his Fa- 
ther's kind and reasonable rule. This bitter cup he 
drinks ; this dreadful death he meekly endures for the 
enemies of his Father and himself, crying in his agony, 
u Father, forgive them, for they know not what they 
do." 

At this wonderful consummation, men stand amazed. 
One exclaims, " truly this was a righteous man ; " and 
all the people that came together to that sight, behold- 
ing the things that are done, smite their breasts, and 
return. Those who would not listen to him in life, 
now become reconciled by his death. And, being 
reconciled, they will naturally remember his wonderful 
example, his precepts, his commands, and thus be 
saved by his life. In after ages the story of his death 
will be read with wonder and gratitude, and will still be 



94 CHRIST OUR FOUNDATION. 

efficacious for the reconciliation and salvation of man- 
kind. 

Those who had been appointed by the Son to spread 
the glad tidings of pardon, and to carry on the Father's 
benevolent design — the work of reconciliation — would 
now naturally preach the cross ; would know nothing 
among men, but the Son and Him crucified. This 
would be, emphatically, their theme. In this would 
they glory. For this, in imitation of their Master, 
would they rejoice to suffer and to die. By believing 
in the cross, as held up to view by its ministers, all 
could still be rescued who are willing to be saved on the 
terms proposed by their sovereign. 

Other foundation can no man lay. This is to save 
us. The death of Christ reconciles us to God, and his 
life teaches us how to live. Therefore we, Unitarians 
as well as Trinitarians, belong to the Lord Jesus Christ, 
who has bought us with his blood. Eternal life is the 
gift of the Father, through him. Oh, what a price He 
paid for us ! Herein is love ! Now hath the Father 
given Him power over all flesh, that he should give 
eternal life to as many as he hath given him.* If Christ, 
under God, hath given to us eternal life, to Christ, un- 
der God, we belong. We are Christ's, and Christ is 
God's. Christ says to his Father, u all mine are thine, 
and thine are mine." Now, my dear Sir, is it correct 
to say that Unitarians reject the atonement, only be- 
cause they do not admit your view of it ? If they 
believe that the death of Christ is efficacious in pro- 
curing their salvation, in this sense they believe that it 

John xvii. 2. 



Christ's death our life. 95 

was thereby purchased. They believe that his death 
was necessary to produce such a change in us, that our 
Heavenly Father could pardon our sins according to 
his promise. Without the death of Christ we should 
not be so likely to be wrought upon to repent and re- 
form, and without repentance and reformation we could 
not be pardoned. Thus is our redemption purchased 
by the blood of Christ, who, in a sense, and by a fig- 
ure, bore our sins in his own body on the tree ; just as, 
in a sense, and by a figure, he took the infirmities, and 
bore the sicknesses of those whose maladies he removed 
while he sojourned among, men. 

Thus, my dear Sir, I have answered your question 
by affirming, that, whether the leading tenets of Uni- 
tarianism be true or false, they cannot be characterized 
by the fact of denying the Lord that bought them. 
Nor can they be said to reject Christ's divinity and 
atonement. Though you and they entertain very dif- 
ferent views about these matters, they rejoice in the be- 
lief that their system is by far the most Scriptural and 
rational one. 



LETTER XI. 



THE SCRIPTURES HONOR CHRIST. 
My dear Sir : 

You ask me to " consider deeply whether the whole 
strain of the New Testament, and of a great mass of 
passages in the Old, do not seem constructed on the 
principle of honoring Christ as much as possible. 
One," you say, u calls him l Rabbi ;' one, the Son of 
God, and King ; another, c one who knew all things ; ' 
another, his Lord and his God. There seems, " you 
continue, " to have been no fear of overcharging the 
epithets of honor, or the ascriptions of power bestowed. 
Now the charge of Unitarianism is, plainly, that we 
think too much of Christ, and honor him too highly. 
But to honor him very highly is the spirit of all the 
New Testament." 

I freely grant that epithets of honor and ascriptions 
of power, are, throughout the Bible, lavished upon our 
blessed Master ; but that is no reason why we should 
confound him with the Supreme God, who is constantly 
spoken of as a distinct Being from the Messiah. How 
can the Son be the Father ? We are no where told 
that they are two distinct persons in one Being. It is 



TRINITARIANS DISHONOR CHRIST. 97 

true that Christ says, u I and my Father are one ; " 
but he also, in prayer to his Father, explains his mean- 
ing by these remarkable words ; " and the glory which 
thou gavest we, I have given them, that they may be 
one, even as we are one." And how could this be ? 
Let our Lord reply ; " that they all may be one, as 
thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also 
may be " — not one in each other, but — u one in us." # 

Further, Unitarians do not charge their orthodox 
brethren with giving too much honor to Christ ; they 
charge them with mistaking altogether the declarations 
of the Bible concerning him. The Christ in whom 
Unitarians believe ; who is a distinct being from the 
Supreme God ; the Son, and not the Father ; you 
do not sufficiently honor ; therefore the charge made 
against you, by Unitarians, is just the reverse of the one 
you have put into their lips. What you call the human 
nature of Christ you certainly do not honor as the 
Unitarian honors his Master. When Christ declares, 
without qualification, that there was a certain day and 
hour of which he knew nothing, we, who are Unitarians, 
believe him. You, on the contrary, make him prevari- 
cate, and, in one nature, deny what he certainly must 
have known in the other ; and yet these two natures 
you declare to have been in constant and intimate union. 
You continually make him contradict himself. This is, 
in my view, sadly to dishonor him. 

It is very natural that the Scriptures should seem to 
labor to honor Christ. It was to reveal the way of 

*Johnxvii.21,22. 



98 AN EXTRACT. 

salvation by Christ that they were written. Patriarchs, 
prophets, evangelists, apostles, all hold up the Messiah 
to the view of a suffering, sinful world. In the glowing 
language of the east, they reveal the promised Saviour 
of mankind. Now, all that the Scriptures say of Christ 
Unitarians joyfully receive. They are not afraid of 
honoring their Master, but they are afraid of assigning 
to him that place which belongs to God alone. 

You go on to say, u had I heard of some great un- 
natural attack of my friend's upon her venerable parents, 
personally, it could not have surprised me more. She 
virtually attacks our common Lord and Redeemer, as 
I must testify, by this retrocession from her allegiance 
to Him ; lessens infinitely his claims on her ; lowers 
his title to her confidence — his right to command — 
her motives to love him. He did not leave His divine 
throne for her, she has discovered ; did not take upon 
himself her nature ; did not condescend to be a man. 
She has no duty to Him as c Lord of all ; ■ discards 
and repudiates all zeal for Him as once relinquishing 
and now wielding all power in Heaven and on earth. 
Is this my once pious friend ? The whole character, 
tone, and depth of her piety, how changed, if these 
tidings be true ! " 

My dear Sir, why should you seek to make my heart 
sad, when the Lord has not made it so ? I thank God 
that such assertions cannot deprive me of that peace of 
conscience which I feel at this moment ; but such allu- 
sions to my venerable parents as the one you have made 
above, do make me sad indeed. God knows how it 
has wrung my heart to give them pain ; but He also 



UNITARIANS CHRISTIANS. 99 

knows that I could not conscientiously act otherwise 
than I have done. 

And what right have you to say that I have given up 
my allegiance to our common Lord ? You require, 
before you will allow to me the title of Christian, far 
more than Christ or his apostles — the establishers of 
this religion — ever required. Now what right has 
any one to do this ? In the New Testament I con- 
stantly find that men were commanded to believe that 
the Messiah was the Son of God ; but in the present 
day a very different faith is required of us. Instead of 
saying, u I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of 
the living God," men are required to say, " I believe 
that thou art the living God himself." The former is 
the Unitarian faith, the latter the Trinitarian ; which of 
them is the more scriptural belief, it appears to me is 
very plain. 

You cannot produce one passage of Scripture in 
which the primitive teachers of Christianity required a 
belief in Jesus as the Supreme Being. They called 
upon men to believe and confess that Jesus was the 
Christ ; that is, the Anointed ; he who was to come ; 
who was typified and promised throughout the Old 
Testament, as the great Mediator between God and 
man. He was to be received as the glorious Saviour 
of the world — anointed and sent of God for this pur- 
pose, and therefore clothed with the authority of God 
himself. A knowledge of his original nature was never 
made a requisite before men could receive the salvation 
he came to bring. It was enough that they recog- 
nized his divine authority, and joyfully submitted to it. 



100 SCRIPTURE TESTS OF FAITH. 

And what right have modern divines to require more 
than their Master ever did ? 

Should a father send a messenger to a child in a dis- 
tant country, would it be absolutely necessary for that 
child to discover the original standing and respectability 
of the messenger before he would receive and honor 
his father's message ? Would not his chief inquiry be, 
does he really come from my father, with full power 
and authority to deliver and enforce his will ? This 
point once satisfactorily ascertained, would not the mes- 
sage have equal weight whether the chosen messenger 
were originally rich or poor, honored or unknown ? 

I do not mean to say that the original dignity and 
importance of the messenger would be a matter of no 
consequence. Far from it. But I do mean to assert 
that his original character would not affect the abstract 
question of his authority, and of the child's duty impli- 
citly to obey what he is convinced is his father's mes- 
sage.* Now Christ comes to us as the messenger of 
God. Through Him God was manifested in the flesh. 
He came to usher in the Christian dispensation. Well, 
if I acknowledge his authority — let it proceed from 
what source it may — let it be original, or derived from 
the Father, as he expressly teaches us it is — the effect 
upon me is just the same ; and you have no right to 
take it for granted that I am no Christian, and that the 
whole character, tone, and depth of my piety are 

* The Trinitarian Bishop Watson says, " His (Christ's) author- 
ity as a teacher, is the same, whether you suppose him to have 
been the Eternal God, or a being inferior to Him, but commis- 
sioned by Him." 



Christ's authority. 101 

changed, when I acknowledge Christ as my spiritual 
Head and Lord just as fully and heartily as ever I did. 
u Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ? 
To his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he 
shall be holden up ; for God is able to make him 
stand." 



9* 



LETTER XII. 



INSTABILITY. 



My dear Sir : 

You have pronounced me "unstable," and perhaps 
there are many of my other relatives and friends who 
are at this very moment applying to me the same injuri- 
ous epithet. But my experience and observation, 
during my journey through life thus far, have convinced 
me that the possession of an inquiring, honest, inde- 
pendent mind — especially if such a mind be connected 
with an ardent temperament — will nearly always bring 
upon its possessor, at some time or other of his life, 
the charge of instability. Progress is emphatically the 
law of such a man's being. 

Now, if, in childhood, he, as most others do, receives 
his opinions upon trust, in all probability the time will 
come when he w r ill change those opinions. If, unfor- 
tunately, from the ardor of his feelings, or some peculiar 
circumstances of his life, he makes them known to the 
world before he has sufficiently examined and compared 
them with other and opposite opinions, he has the mor- 
tifying task before him of acknowledging himself to have 
been in error. But the truly honest mind will not be 



OPINIONS SOMETIMES TO BE TRIED. 103 

deterred, by any feelings of mortification, from avowing 
any change, which, after mature deliberation, may have 
taken place ; especially when it is considered that such 
a change is not always a mark of folly. There is an 
old Italian saying, which has passed into a proverb, 
with which such a man may comfort himself — il sabio 
muda conscio, il nescio no. # 

It is often the case that a man may never have occa- 
sion to suspect his opinions, till providential circumstan- 
ces place them before him in a new and startling light, 
and he sees defects and errors which had always re- 
mained hidden before. Then, if he be a man of the 
right stamp, he will march boldly up to the difficulty, 
and stare it in the face. Perhaps, upon close inspec- 
tion, what appeared to be spots and blemishes will turn 
out to be only shadows upon a bright surface — shadows 
created by some external objects, which will disappear 
when those objects are removed, and leave the surface 
unsullied and glorious as before. Or, it may be, he 
will find that they are stains which cannot be removed ; 
indicative of unsoundness in the material itself. 

Free inquiry is, in general, no friend to old ideas and 
associations. And it behoves us to be cautious how, 
with ruthless hands, we remove the old landmarks, and 
lose sight of the natural boundaries and limits set for the 
human mind. But, on the other hand, those who have 
fettered themselves with human pledges, and imprisoned 
themselves within the boundaries of human creeds and 
systems, will find it extremely difficult, nay, almost 

* A wise man changes his mind, a fool never. 



104 IMPORTANCE OF INVESTIGATION. 

impossible, to burst those fetters, however galling, or 
overstep those boundaries, however narrow and uncom- 
fortable. They will even find it difficult to give due 
credit to the motives of those who can no longer remain 
thus fettered and imprisoned — who have made the 
effort, and freed themselves from bondage. 

And here I cannot too earnestly enforce upon those 
who are intrusted with the training of youthful minds, 
the vast importance of giving them every opportunity 
and assistance in the candid and thorough examination 
of the various systems of Theology, professed through- 
out the world. Such a course will, at least, teach them 
caution in the formation and expression of their views, 
and it may save them from much future trouble and per- 
plexity. Such an examination, taking place in early 
life, beneath the watchful eye of pure affection, will 
ever be a source of satisfaction to all concerned, pro- 
vided that examination has been a thorough and candid 
one. Let every system of faith be brought to the test 
of Scripture, and not alone the faith professed by our 
progenitors. 

If parents do not even allow their children to hear 
the opinions of those who differ from them ; if, on 
the contrary, they anxiously and sedulously keep them 
in the dark ; if, more especially, they ever let it be 
discovered that they dread and fear any freedom of 
inquiry — they may rest assured that they are likely to 
defeat the very ends at which they aim. They cannot 
always hold the veil before their children's eyes. The 
parent bird cannot always keep its offspring in the nest. 
The human mind loves freedom, and will not always 



AN EXTRACT. 105 

consent to be fettered. The time may come when opin- 
ions, which are merely the result of education, which 
have been taken upon trust, which have never stood 
the test of free inquiry, and comparison with other 
opinions, — the time, I say, may come, when these 
opinions shall be shaken. Then, a strong and unyield- 
ing foundation may be absolutely necessary to keep the 
whole fabric of faith from falling like the house which 
was built upon the sand. 

Oh, it will then be a great mercy if the entire struc- 
ture do not crumble into absolute ruin, never to be built 
again. It will be a great mercy, if, amid the general 
wreck, enough of the pure, uncrumbled material can be 
saved for the erection of another, and a more enduring 
structure. Such a result would be happy indeed. The 
new edifice of faith would perhaps be less imposing, 
because more simple, than the former one, but it would 
be not the less beautiful and valuable. On the contrary, 
no mind could estimate, no words could express its su- 
perior value. Its beautiful simplicity and unusual sym- 
etry would never cease to delight its fortunate possessor. 
Built of solid stone, and founded upon a rock, the 
rains might descend, and the floods come, and the 
winds blow, and beat upon that house, and it would not 
fall, because founded on a rock. 

You remark : " Yours is not the first, nor the second, 
nor even the third case in which I have been called to 
mourn the fulfilment of God's awful prophecy in the 
persons of my own friends. Some valued friends have 
already proved that they were ' given up to strong delu- 
sion, to believe a lie,' by professing that other form of 



106 WHO HAS THE HOLY SPIRIT? 

Anti-Christ more suited to the constitution of their 
minds — called Popery. Widely as they seem to dif- 
fer, they are, when sifted, varied developments of the 
same enmity to God's wonderful yet simple way. My 
own mode of accounting for it is, that it has not pleased 
God to enlighten them with his Holy Spirit." 

To what u awful prophecy" do you allude in the 
first part of this extract ? Is it that of being given 
over to strong delusion, to believe a lie ? I suppose it 
must be. A little further on you say, that " it has not 
pleased God to enlighten them," that is, those who do 
not think as you do, " with his Holy Spirit." This is 
quite a flattering unction for a man to lay to his soul, I 
am willing to acknowledge. It would be a very con- 
venient mode of settling differences of opinion, if we 
could only be certain who has the Spirit, and who has 
not. But there is the rub. If w 7 e could only decide 
upon some one living human being like ourselves, who, 
we were very sure, was under this special influence, 
whom we could consult, to whom we could explain 
the minutest shade of difference in our opinions — who 
could patiently listen to all we have to say, and give us 
precise answers, not to be mistaken — our differences 
might all be speedily and satisfactorily adjusted. Not 
one of us would object to making him the umpire be- 
tween us. We could appeal to this infallible guide upon 
every topic which has ever divided the Christian world, 
and he would settle the matter at once. None of us 
would then object to having a "Pope." How delight- 
ful it would be to have such a guide at every step of 
our progress ! He would tell us exactly what our Lord 



NO INFALLIBLE HUMAN GUIDE. 107 

meant when he said, <c My Father is greater than I," 
and u of mine own self I can do nothing." It we 
differed concerning any of his own sayings, he would 
at once tell us precisely what his meaning was, and 
say to one, you are right, — and to another, you are 
wrong. 

But, unfortunately, such a thing cannot be. We are 
not living in the times of the apostles. There is no 
Paul to whom a Christian church can write for informa- 
tion upon any particular point. The miraculous gifts of 
the Holy Ghost to certain favored individuals are no 
longer to be expected. In regard to this, all of us are 
upon a perfect equality. Therefore it becomes not any 
man to say, that such and such a person has not the 
Holy Spirit. It is an arrogant claim, which I, for one, 
am not willing to admit ; nor will it, I venture to say, 
be admitted by others who differ from you. When I 
plainly perceive the fruits of the Spirit — " love, joy, 
peace, long suffering, goodness, faith, meekness, tem- 
perance " — I joyfully acknowledge its existence. So 
far as we, frail and erring creatures, can venture to 
judge from evidence, I judge from what I see. 

But, in regard to matters of opinion, the case is 
altered. Of all the millions in the world who differ in 
opinion, what one man possesses the greatest share of 
the Holy Spirit ? All equally claim it ; whose claims 
are the best ? Why may not I have it as well as you ? 
I ask for it, I wait for it, why may I not possess it ? 
The bare assertion of another that my neighbor is not 
enlightened by the Holy Spirit, is, in my view, a poor 
reason for believing it to be so. Because your neigh- 



108 NO INFALLIBLE HUMAN GUIDE. 

bor cannot see as you do, you insist upon it, that God 
has blinded his eyes, that seeing he may see, and not 
perceive, &c. Ought any one but the Searcher of 
hearts himself to attempt the application of such a text ? 
Ought a mortal to presume to apply it to his fellow mor- 
tal ? If the actions of the life give evidence of the 
dominion of evil principles, we cannot help forming a 
judgment of the state of the heart — we are allowed to 
judge of men by their fruits. But with the religious 
opinions of others we have nothing to do in the way of 
judgment and condemnation. Our business lies with 
ourselves. We may think others wrong, but let us take 
care how we judge them harshly, and without hesitation 
declare that they belong to " Anti-Christ." Let us 
see to it that we are in the right ; let us strain every 
nerve to arrive at the right spot ; and "let every man 
be fully persuaded in his own mind." 



LETTER XIII. 



MENTAL FREEDOM. 
My dear Sir : 

You are right in the supposition that what you are 
pleased to denominate one " form of Anti-Christ " — 
meaning Unitarianism — suits better the " peculiar con- 
stitution " of my mind, than "that other form" you 
call " Popery." I do love Unitarianism for the liberty 
it gives to every man to form his own opinions from the 
Bible, and, when he has formed, to express them. 
Nothing so little suits the " constitution " of an active 
mind as any kind or degree of mental thraldom. 
Nothing is so apt to weaken, to disease, to break down 
any constitution, physical or mental, as close and pro- 
tracted confinement. There is no mental progress 
where there is mental slavery ; and the active mind 
loves progress. It must be free, it must be at work, it 
must advance, or it will chafe and fret, and prey upon 
itself, as the newly imprisoned bird sometimes struggles 
till it dies. 

The mind, too, which thinks for itself, is the only 
mind which understands and feels its own responsibility 
to God. And where this responsibility is felt, care 
10 



1 10 GENERAL IGNORANCE. 

will be taken to avail itself of every assistance within 
its reach for the formation of correct opinions. The 
habit of assenting to the dictation of others in matters 
of religion is very much calculated to deaden our sense 
of responsibility, and to produce listlessness and inat- 
tention as to what we really do believe. I speak from 
my own knowledge, when I affirm it to be very generally 
the case in our orthodox churches, that the mass of pri- 
vate members are exceedingly ignorant of the specu- 
lative and peculiar points of their faith. This is the 
natural consequence of multiplying minor and unneces- 
sary articles of belief. The few great fundamental 
articles of religion, such as all Christians can draw from 
their Bibles, the majority understand and appreciate, 
and, in general, can boldly and successfully advocate ; 
but of the peculiar points of difference between the 
various sects of Christendom they are wofully ignorant. 
In some respects this circumstance is not without its 
advantages. The practical, and what I would call fun- 
damental doctrines of their religion exert their salutary 
influence upon their characters, while those speculative 
and metaphysical points, a belief in which we consider 
injurious to the character, lie comparatively inert and 
harmless. But, on the other hand, what we consider 
error is perpetuated from generation to generation, be- 
cause its unsightly features are so generally hidden 
beneath a veil of ignorance, or altogether lost sight of 
through inattention and apathy. In former days, when 
I have had the doctrines of Calvinism pressed home 
upon me, I have insisted that such were not, and could 
not be, the doctrines of my church. But an attentive 



assembly's catechism. Ill 

study of the writings of Calvin himself have taught me 
otherwise. 

If I had known what I was doing — if I had real- 
ized to what I was binding myself when I united with a 
branch of Christ's church holding the Calvinistic creed, 
I could never have done it. I do not say these things 
by way of apology for myself ; I only mention them as 
facts — as not uncommon facts. I knew the Assembly's 
Catechism by heart at a very early age ; it was faith- 
fully taught me, with all its notes and references ; but I 
was too young, light-hearted, and thoughtless, to receive 
from it any very definite ideas ; and the words which 
were engraved upon my memory were mere sounds, 
conveying, to my mind, very little sense. It is now 
my business and my aim to forget them, though they 
often haunt me like phantoms of the past. 

It was impossible that I could then understand, and 
fully receive, what has puzzled, and will ever continue 
to puzzle, older and wiser heads than mine. But I 
sincerely hope and trust that the unfortunate peculiari- 
ties of the system will, after a time, become entirely 
obsolete. May the period soon arrive ! It will be a 
joyful day for Christendom, and I devoutly believe it 
will occasion joy in Heaven. Cut, my dear Sir, I have 
unconsciously broken the connection of my thoughts by 
giving way to a bright anticipation, and I will now re- 
sume my subject. 

Once indoctrinated, and received within the pale of 
the church, the practical, useful part of my religion 
especially occupied my attention, and a blessed source 
of comfort and support I have found it, and do still find 



112 CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES. 

it ; and especially, now that it is stripped of its incum- 
brances, and I hold a rational, beautiful, and simple 
faith, it is far more dear to me than ever. 

When my mind began to act for itself, I often felt 
perplexed about some of the doctrines of Calvinism. 
My friends can bear me witness, how, especially, the 
Calvinistic ideas of election and reprobation distressed 
and puzzled me at various periods of my life. The 
speculative portions of my faith were essentially op- 
posed to my tastes and feelings ; in a word — for you 
have supplied me with the exact idea — to the "con- 
stitution " of my mind. A want of harmony between 
my creed, and what, I am sure, were the best feelings of 
my heart, has always been a source of undefined unea- 
siness ; so that, in order to enjoy my religion, which, 
from the pressure of exceedingly severe domestic afflic- 
tions, was necessary for me, I clung to the harmo- 
nious, practical, and true, and managed to keep out 
of sight those doctrines in which I could never fully 
acquiesce. The hearing of doctrinal, metaphysical 
sermons invariably created an indescribable uneasiness, 
jarred the sensitive framework of my mind, confused 
my intellect, and put all my feelings out of tune. And 
all this was not the less trying, because I never knew 
certainly what troubled me, or what had created the 
discord within. On the contrary, practical sermons, or 
those recognizing mainly the universally acknowledged, 
the fundamental doctrines of our holy religion, have 
ever been my solace and delight. 

My life has thus been one of inward conflict. I 
have spent my years in struggling to believe what was 



INWARD CONFLICTS. 113 

revolting to my common sense, but what my creed, when 
at length I did comprehend it, plainly told me I must 
believe, or be lost forever. I say my creed told me 
this ; for that the majority of Calvinists practically 
hold such a shocking, exclusive faith — a faith which 
shuts out from Heaven all except themselves — I do 
not, will not, cannot believe. 

Thus it will be seen that I have not suddenly arrived 
at the spot where I now stand. My friends have often 
been startled at what they deemed my temerity, when I 
would occasionally venture to express my suspicions 
that such and such doctrines might be erroneous. You 
yourself tell me that you confess you are not sur- 
prised at my change. You thought me some time ago 
" too prone to embark upon a sea for which," you 
assert, I u was not ballasted ; " and you also remark, 
"that you saw my leaning, when you discovered my 
tendency to Arminianism." I remind you, my dear 
Sir, of all these circumstances, to shield myself from 
the charge of haste in changing my opinions, which has 
been so often, so industriously laid at my door ; aye, and 
so harshly too. 

Now the doctrine that, in consequence of the sin of 
another, man is brought into the world with a nature so 
totally depraved that he cannot possibly do anything 
that is right, his understanding so darkened that he can- 
not discern the plainest truths in the Bible, and yet that 
he is held responsible for the commission of sin — 
threatened with the pains of Hell unless he does what 
he has no power to do, and understands what he has 
no ability to understand — is a doctrine which never 
10* 



114 INWARD CONFLICTS. 

seemed to me quite right. Not more right did the doc- 
trine seem that one portion of the human race were 
elected to eternal misery, and the other portion to eter- 
nal happiness by a special, unconditional decree of 
God : and it also seemed strange to me that all man- 
kind were exhorted to repent and be saved by the atone- 
ment of Christ, when that atonement was made only 
for a very small number. These and their kindred 
doctrines it has often seemed to me, in years gone by, 
could only be received by dethroning reason and com- 
mon sense ; and I have not been surprised to notice the 
curl upon the lip of the scorner, when these and similar 
doctrines have been held prominently forth from some 
of the pulpits of our land. 

No, I repeat it, I have not suddenly arrived at my 
present position. Many years of dissatisfaction pre- 
pared the way for the change which has appeared to 
electrify my relatives and friends. Your superior dis- 
cernment probably saved you from experiencing a simi- 
lar shock. The powerful impressions of childhood, 
the strong cords of education and early association 
which held the system together, have not, I can assure 
both you and them, been sundered in a moment. One 
knot after another has been untied. I have felt the 
framework loosening, and trembling, and parting joint 
after joint, till, at length, it has fallen asunder. The 
fall seems, to others, sudden and woful. This is be- 
cause the struggle through which I have for years been 
passing, could be known only to myself. Indeed, it 
can scarcely be said to have been known to myself ; 
at any rate, I did not certainly know to what the con- 
flict was tending. 



INWARD CONFLICTS. ] 15 

It has been severe and disheartening. My best and 
brightest days have been sacrificed to what I nou deem 
an erroneous creed ; yet I scarcely know whether to 
regret that this has been the case. In one view of t he 
subject, I can thank God for it all. It makes me char- 
itable and forgiving towards those who hold this dreadful 
faith ; who are not willing to grant me the name of 
Christian ; who rank me with the adherents of " Anti- 
Christ," though I still regard Christ as my spiritual head, 
my master, and my Lord, and still recognise, with all 
my heart, his divine authority. It makes my present 
foundation like the solid rock, my present views definite 
and strong, my hopes firm and bright, my joys calm and 
enduring, my sufferings useful ; and it makes me prize 
unspeakably that liberty wherewith Christ has made me 
free. 



LETTER XIV. 



CALVINISM. 



My dear Sir : 

I not long ago heard two orthodox divines of the 
Calvinistic school congratulating themselves upon the 
perfection of their system, remarking that they prized 
it because all the parts of it " dovetailed " together 
so nicely. Yes, Sir, it is certain they do dovetail 
in a beautiful manner, but it is only as a system of hu- 
man invention that they do so ; they certainly do not 
harmonize with human reason, nor, it is plain to me, 
with Scripture ; certainly not with the character of 
God as it is revealed to us in the Bible. 

But it gratifies me to observe that the Calvinists, with 
whom I am acquainted, are quite solicitous to soften 
down the rigid features of their system. It is an evi- 
dence that in the present age of the world it cannot be 
received in all its harshness, as Calvin himself taught 
it, nor as it has since been taught by some of the lead- 
ing divines in this and other countries. What would 
the stern reformer say, could he know the modifications 
of his system common at the present day ? A short 
time since I heard a very intelligent lady attempting to 



CALVINISM. 1 17 

shield it from reproach, and she avowed that she had 
no sympathy with "Calvinism run mad," as she termed 
the view of it which had been presented to her mind. 
But that insane Calvinism is by no means as insane as 
it was when Calvin gave it to the world. The truth is, 
Calvinists shrink with horror when the legitimate con- 
sequences of their system are portrayed before them ; 
they are unwilling to admit the truth of the exhibition. 
Such persons, I take it, are Calvinists only in name. 
I hear frequent remonstrances against pushing these 
doctrines to extremes, but I cannot see that these ex- 
tremes reach even as far as Calvin pushed them, or as 
far as they were carried by the Westminster divines, 
or President Edwards.* 

Those who oppose Calvinism are generally charged 
with misrepresenting its doctrines ; but a few extracts 
from the standard Calvinistic writers will suffice to show 
that this is not the case ; that is, if language conveys 
the same meaning upon this subject that it does upon 
others. It is difficult to portray the horrors of Calvin- 
ism in stronger language than its own advocates have 
used. The Westminster Assembly's Catechism speaks 
of " the corruption of his (man's) nature, whereby he is 
utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all 
that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, 
and that continually." 

Calvin says, " even our very natural faculties are all 
depraved and contaminated. Whence it is that we are 
moved from within by no thought to do well. Where- 
fore," he goes on to say, " I detest those who ascribe 

* See Appendix N. 



118 CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES. 

to us any freedom of will, by which we may prepare 
ourselves to receive the grace of God, or by which we 
may of ourselves co-operate with the' Holy Spirit, 
which may be given us." Then there is nothing which 
we can do ; and what becomes of our responsibility ? 
And is the last remark quoted from Calvin consistent 
with the benign spirit of Christianity ? Where has our 
Master ever given us leave to detest those who differ 
from us in mere opinion ? Oh, my dear Sir, let it be 
our aim to follow our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, 
and not Calvin. 

President Edwards says : u So long as men are in 
their natural state, they not only have no good thing, 
but it is impossible that they should have or do any good 
thing." 

Do you say they are to blame for being in this state, 
or even for remaining in it ? How are they to get out 
of it ? President Edwards says that, while in this 
state, which is their natural state, it is impossible for 
them to do any good thing. How are they to blame 
for what it is, in the nature of things, impossible for 
them to do ? If you insist that they are to blame, pray 
tell me how. 

According to Calvinism, they cannot help themselves. 
They cannot repent and turn to God, as the Scriptures 
command "all men, everywhere," to do. What a 
mockery does this system make of the precious invita- 
tions which the gospel gives to " every creature ? ' : If 
they are " utterly indisposed, disabled, and made oppo- 
site to all that is spiritually good," how can God entreat, 
aye, command them to become so ? It is a bitter 



CALV1NISTIC DOCTRINES. 119 

mockery to press the claims of the gospel upon those 
who are so utterly helpless. 

The God who will punish men for being and remain- 
ing in the condition in which they were born, and from 
which they have no ability to free themselves, cannot 
be the God of the Bible, who, we are told, is Love. 
To make the case still more desperate, they are, ac- 
cording to Calvin, the subjects of an absolute decree of 
the Almighty ; a decree which he declared, at some 
moment when the horrible deductions from his premises 
stared him in the face, to be u a dreadful one." He 
informs us that the reprobate were created for this very 
purpose — that they might be examples of God's sever- 
ity. He declares that cc they cannot avoid the neces- 
sity of sinning, especially as this necessity is imposed 
upon them by the ordinance of God." 

The Assembly's Catechism says, cc the rest of man- 
kind (that is, the non-elect) God was pleased, accord- 
ing to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby 
he extendeth or withholdeth mercy, as he pleaseth, 
for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, 
to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath 
for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice." 
And President Edwards asserts that God u decrees 
all sins." 

Now if we are under such a government as this, how 
can God, even consistently with his attribute of jus- 
tice, punish or reward us for anything we do ? But the 
Catechism says, " the punishment of sin in the world to 
come is everlasting separation from the comfortable 
presence of God, and most grievous torments, in soul 



120 CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES. 

and body, without intermission, in Hell-fire forever." 
This punishment is the consequence of sin growing out 
of what Edwards calls the dreadful condition of natural 
man. He says that cc natural men are held in the hands 
of God over the pit of Hell ; they have deserved the 
fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it ; and God is 
dreadfully provoked ; his anger is as great towards them 
as to those that are actually suffering the execution of 

the fierceness of his wrath in hell." " The devil is 

waiting for them ; hell is gaping for them ; the flames 
gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on 
them, and swallow them up." 

Addressing the unconverted, he says, u the God who 
holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spi- 
der or some loathsome insect, abhors you and is dread- 
fully provoked ; his wrath towards you burns like fire ; 
he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else but to be 
cast into the fire ; he is of purer eyes than to bear to 
have you in his sight ; you are ten thousand times so 
abominable in his eyes, as the most hateful and venom- 
ous serpent is in ours." I ask, my dear Sir, is this 
the God who is represented by the father in the beau- 
tiful parable of the prodigal' son ? 

Calvin says, that " even infants bring their damnation 
with them from their mother's womb ; for, although 
they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity, 
they have the seed of it enclosed within them. Nay, 
their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, so that 
it cannot be otherwise than odious and abominable to 
God." And yet our Saviour said of little children, 
<f of such is the kingdom of Heaven ! " 



CALVINISTIC DOCTRINES. 121 

I could easily go on, my dear Sir, and quote page 
after page of such dreadful sentences, but you know as 
well as I do where they are to be found, and I long to 
turn my thoughts away from the sickening subject. It 
brings dark pictures of the past afresh to my mind — 
it recalls hours of anguish which I would forever forget. 
But I wished to do my part in shielding from the charge 
of exaggeration those who oppose Calvinism, and 
among these I now rank myself. With how much 
reason the charge is made, let the foregoing extracts 
decide. 



11 



LETTER XV. 



GOD OUR FATHER. 

My dear Sir : 

If the doctrines of Calvinism are contrary to all our 
ideas of justice, at what an infinite remove are they 
from any idea of benevolence ! Yet how benevolent 
is the character of God as it is represented to us in the 
Bible. He is there exhibited as our Father. And the 
love of a father to his child is but a faint emblem of the 
love of God to us. Our Saviour says, "if ye then, 
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your chil- 
dren, how much more will your Father which is in 
Heaven give good things to them that ask him." 

What thoughts of love, what sweet associations rush 
in upon the heart when we call our God by the tender 
name of Father ! How could God more forcibly have 
impressed his love upon us ? What child of a kind 
earthly father does not understand in a moment the en- 
dearing, the intimate relation he sustains to God, when 
he allows us to view Him as a Father ? But, more- 
over, the Bible certainly reveals the Creator as a being 
of infinite justice and goodness. Nor is he merely 
just to Himself and to his law, he is just to his 
creatures. 



CONCEPTIONS OF GOD. 123 

But, you will say, the same Bible also reveals the 
truth that man, in consequence of Adam's sin, comes 
into the world totally depraved, and that he is liable to 
everlasting punishment in consequence of that hereditary 
depravity. We answer that such a doctrine cannot be 
taught in the same book which reveals God as good and 
just, because it is contrary to all our ideas of justice 
and goodness. You will tell me that no estimate can 
be formed of the character of God from our knowl- 
edge of these attributes as they exist in ourselves. But 
our conceptions of the attributes of God can be formed 
in no other way. The Bible is a special revelation to 
«5, and its language must be in accordance with the 
principles of our nature. The only ideas we can form 
of moral and spiritual attributes, must be from ourselves. 
Why else were they revealed to us at all ? We have 
no other means of judging. Because in us they are 
finite, and in God they are infinite, it does not follow 
that their nature may not be precisely the same.* 

I acknowledge that the man who has so debased 
himself that he has no honor, no integrity, no justice, 
no benevolence, can know but little of such things in 
others — can form scarcely any idea of those attributes 
as they exist in the character of God or of his fellow 
men. But men so totally devoid of every correct feel- 
ing are not often found. Most men possess a share 
of these attributes, and some possess them in a very 
high degree. 

The things around us take their complexion very 
much from the state of our own minds. If there be 

* See Appendix O. 



124 



CONCEPTIONS OF GOD. 



beauty within, we shall be very apt to discover beauty 
without ; if there be loathsomeness and deformity with- 
in, everything around us will seem loathsome and de- 
formed. A discontented mind sees no fitness nor 
beauty in anything, while a contented one gives its 
possessor u a continual feast." If we apply this law 
of the mind to our conceptions of God's character, we 
must acknowledge that the more perfect our character 
is, the more exalted will be our ideas of God's glori- 
ous attributes. 

If then, our ideas of the character of God, so far 
as it has been revealed to us, must be founded upon 
those of our own nature, a system which does violence 
to these natural ideas is a system of doubt and confu- 
sion, and is apt to lead, on the one hand, to blind su- 
perstition, or, on the other, to thorough infidelity. That 
these results are not more universal, I ascribe to the 
fact that the practical truths which are mingled with 
such speculative errors, are all-powerful to preserve the 
majority of those who profess them from dangerous ex- 
tremes. I have had the pleasure of knowing a great 
number of Calvinists who w 7 ere cheerful, spontaneous, 
practical Christians ; not, as I think, in consequence of 
their creed, but in spite of it. There are a great many 
persons in whom natural good sense, sound judgment, 
and the kindly influences of surrounding circumstances 
have operated to render inert and harmless the evil ten- 
dencies of their speculative belief. Many are theoreti- 
cally wrong, while they are practically right. 

You have told me also that " you cannot understand 
how, with my eyes about me, I can doubt the natural 



NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 125 

and total depravity of all the human race. It is indeed 
very true that I see all around me too many convincing 
evidences of depravity not to believe in its existence. 
But that it is innate or total, I do not believe. I have 
made up my mind, after a diligent search for the Cal- 
vinistic doctrine of original sin, that such a doctrine is 
not to be found in the Bible, and that those passages 
which seem to teach it have been misapplied and mis- 
understood. They speak of the fact of its existence, 
not of its origin. 

I think also that such a belief fosters immorality, 
and is exceedingly debasing to the mind. If we are 
taught from our earliest years that we are by nature 
entirely disposed to evil, and unable to do good, we 
shall be very apt to feel that we must content ourselves 
with a state of things which we cannot possibly remedy ; 
and, on other subjects certainly, this would seem to be 
real philosophy. Naturally enough, we should conclude 
that any effort of ours to alter our miserable condition, 
would be entirely superfluous and useless. 

It appears to me also that our incessant notice of the 
prevalence of evil arises from the fact that vice attracts 
this notice more than virtue. It strikes us, because it is 
unnatural. It interrupts the natural harmony of things, 
and introduces discord and confusion. Thus we notice 
vice because it disturbs us, and because it disturbs the 
course of moral nature, while virtue is in harmony with 
the general and common feeling — with the moral world 
around us. Vice attracts our notice because we do not 
expect it, while virtue is what we seem naturally to ex- 
pect. Vice excites our surprise and reprehension, 
11* 



126 NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 

while virtue, except, it may be, in some uncommon 
and splendid cases, is passed by as a matter of course. 
In short, virtue is the rule, and vice the exception. 

Now if men are in the corrupt and helpless condition 
in which Calvinism places our unfortunate race, the ex- 
hibition of the smallest virtue would naturally be a 
matter of unbounded surprise. Yet how common, how 
almost universal, are the delightful domestic virtues ! 
Where they do not exist, we feel that our nature has 
been outraged, and its principles violated. We call 
such cases unnatural. But if men are prone to evil, 
and only evil, and that continually, and so prone to it 
that they are entirely disabled from doing any good 
thing at all, why is there any redeeming trait ? Why 
are not all men just as bad as they can be ? Why are 
there any restraints upon society ? If all are totally 
depraved, why are not all alike ? Unless it be, as some 
person once remarked, that all are totally depraved, 
only some are more totally so than others. 

And what possible good can degrading views of our 
nature do us ? Surely they are not calculated to teach 
us humility ; for he who regards himself as naturally 
degraded, has no reason to be humbled because of his 
degradation. He cannot help it, he is the victim of 
inexorable fate. He is driven on to his own ruin by a 
power which he cannot resist. He is a mere machine, 
performing faithfully the work for which he was created. 
If any one says that this is not Calvinism, I ask him to 
read the works of Calvin, and see. Surely there is no 
room for humility when a man is only fulfilling, by com- 
pulsion, his destiny. But, on the contrary, if he who 



NATIVE DEPRAVITY. 127 

knows himself to be capable of great and noble things 
falls far short of fulfilling his glorious destiny, has he not 
cause to be humbled in the very dust ? In the former 
case, the man's want of ability is certainly an excuse ; 
in the latter, his ability affords strong ground for the 
deepest self-condemnation and humility. 



LETTER XVI. 



CONTEMPLATION OF VIRTUE BENEFICIAL. 

My dear Sir : 

Degrading views of our nature are certainly debas- 
ing to the mind. It is a natural law that we are apt to 
assimilate most thoroughly with those things which we 
contemplate most frequently. The contemplation of 
virtue is calculated to inspire the love of virtue, and to 
prompt to virtuous deeds ; while he, who, even specu- 
latively, becomes familiar with vice, is in danger of 
contamination and practical debasement. I believe no 
one will deny that this is a fundamental law of the mind ; 
while some even go so far as to apply this law to our 
physical nature, and assert that the contemplation of the 
beautiful will produce beauty. 

Taking, however, for granted, the existence of this 
mental law, I remark, that he who is constantly on the 
watch for evidences of human depravity, does himself a 
serious injury. In his anxiety to establish the truth of 
a theory, he may become, in his own person, its most 
conspicuous example. His theory may be, in himself, 
reduced to practice. But he who gladly hails every 
trait of God's image in his brother man — who feels a 



TRIUMPHS OF VIRTUE. 129 

thrill of joy when he hears of any action of generous 
self-sacrifice for the good of another — whose pulses 
throb at the recital of noble deeds ; he who most 
watches for, and most gladly hails such delightful de- 
velopments of human sympathy in others, is most sure 
to glow with sympathy himself, and to reflect the image 
of his benevolent God and Father. Such a person 
illumines and rejoices all around him. 

And how comes it that there is always such a general 
burst of generous human feeling at the news of any great 
act of virtue, even if it come to us from the remotest 
corners of the earth ? The first shout of joy and 
triumph is ever swelling higher and higher, and waxing 
louder and louder as it rolls onward towards the most 
distant lands. Through raging oceans, over rugged 
mountains, the tide of human feeling rolls, a pure and 
undivided stream, gathering tribute, and swelling as it 
goes. Thus, the world over, heart meets heart ; and 
virtue receives,. sooner or later, a sure reward. But, 
if men are totally depraved, they would naturally rejoice 
only in the triumph of vice. 

What a pealing anthem of joy resounded through 
every land when the tidings came that, for conscience' 
sake, the ministers and people of the Free Church of 
Scotland had given up their beloved altars, and gone 
forth, poor and unsheltered, beneath the broad canopy of 
Heaven ! What meant that universal shout ? Of what 
was it a sign ? Why did the heart beat quicker than 
was its wont, and the tear of emotion suffuse the eye ? 
It was because the motive which impelled those men — 
let it even have been, as some suppose, a mistaken one 



130 THE GOOD FENELON. 

— found a glad response in every human breast. It 
was because they gave up all for conscience' sake. 

In the life of the great and good Fenelon, a circum- 
stance is related which gives an appropriate and capital 
illustration of the power of goodness to reach and soften 
the hardest hearts. The circumstance is thus narrated : 

" The diocese of Cambrai was often the theatre of 
war, and experienced the cruel ravages of retreating 
and conquering armies. But an extraordinary respect 
was paid to Fenelon by the invaders of France. The 
English, the Germans, and the Dutch, rivalled the 
inhabitants of Cambrai in their veneration for the Arch- 
bishop. All distinctions of religion and sect, all feelings 
of hatred and jealousy that divided the nations, seemed 
to disappear in the presence of Fenelon. Military 
escorts were offered him for his personal security, but 
these he declined, and traversed the countries desolated 
by war, to visit his flock, trusting in the protection of 
God. In these visits, his way was marked by alms and 
benefactions. While he was among them the people 
seemed to enjoy peace in the midst of war." 

Here is a beautiful illustration of the sovereign power 
of goodness. Enemies are made friends ; the evil 
passions engendered and fostered by war are changed 
into mildness and kind regard. And all this because of 
the inspiring presence of a good man ! 

" The virtues of Fenelon," says his biographer, 
" give his history the air of romance ; but his name will 
never die. Transports of joy were heard at Cambrai 
when his ashes were discovered, which, it was thought, 
had been scattered by the tempest of the revolution ; 



HORROR OF CALVINISM. 131 

and to this moment the Flemings call him ' the good 
Archbishop.' " 

After all that I have said, my dear Sir, after plainly 
stating to you how Calvinism appears to me now, you 
will not wonder that I dread and fear it. I regard it 
almost as I would some venomous serpent, from whose 
fangs I have but narrowly escaped. Too long has it 
been coiling itself around my struggling spirit. That its 
poisonous fangs have not reached my vitals, I owe to 
that wonderful Providence of God which has protected 
me from harm, and, at length, provided a way of escape. 
He has given me strength to struggle on, till, at length, 
I have thrown the monster from me. I bless God for 
my escape. 

You will perhaps think that this is unreasonably strong 
language ; but if you only knew how I have suffered — 
how my whole life has been clouded over by this gloomy 
faith — how, even in moments when I have been joy- 
fully welcoming the pure beams of the Sun of Right- 
eousness, its dark cloud has frightened me from afar, 
its low, muttered tones of thunder have reached my 
ears, like a sound foreboding evil — you would not 
think my language too impassioned. Be it so or not, 
it is just as I feel. 

My religion is my all. Without it, what should I be, 
or what should I do ? Without it, how, in my early 
years, could I have borne the changes and sorrows 
which have fallen to my lot ? I love my religion dearly, 
for it has been emphatically my friend. Then, if I 
have been able conscientiously to give up all that was 
dark and debasing about it, while I keep all that is bright 



132 MY FORMER FAITH. 

and elevating, how can I be too thankful ? How can 
I speak too strongly ? I sometimes wonder why, before 
I had proved the all-sustaining power of religion in my 
own experience, I did not give way to skepticism, and 
become the victim of infidelity. I cannot but remem- 
ber the shocking doubts which sometimes found their 
way into my mind ; doubts which sometimes made me 
miserable for weeks together. Rebellious and unworthy 
thoughts of God, my heavenly Father and Friend ; how 
they used to haunt and torture me ! They grew out of 
my creed. To a person of my " mental constitution," 
if I thought about it at all, it could not be otherwise. 
I could not teach myself to reconcile contradictions. I 
could not school myself to receive, what always seemed 
to me absurdities. I never examined them deeply. I 
tried to believe them, but tried without success ; or, at 
most, it was a strange sort of belief, against my better 
judgment. 

It was an extorted faith. I feared to believe other- 
wise. And soon the time came, when, under the pres- 
sure of deep affliction, religion became absolutely 
necessary to me. I clung therefore to the practical and 
truthful, shutting my eyes upon all the rest. I have, 
indeed, endeavored to indoctrinate myself — to under- 
stand what I thought I must believe, and to fill my 
mind with arguments for that belief; but I never before 
now thoroughly examined the question, whether those 
opinions were true. I never myself, and I confess it 
with sorrow, brought them meekly to the law and to the 
testimony, to judge, by my own reason, whether they 
could be found there. I was afraid to doubt. And in 
regard to the Trinity, I did not doubt till lately. 



MY FORMER FAITH. 133 

And I verily thought that Unitarians had scarcely 
any religion at all. I shrank with fear at the idea of 
attending one of their Churches on the Sabbath day. 
It seemed almost immorality to read one of their books. 
I knew and loved some of them, but I pitied their delu- 
sions, and wondered how they could be so blinded. 
The subject of our religious differences was generally 
carefully avoided, or I might have discovered that I 
was doing them sad injustice. I fear my inclination 
was to say to every Unitarian, cc stand by thyself, for 
I am holier than thou." I fear I often prayed in my 
heart the prayer of the Pharisee, saying, " God, I thank 
thee that I am not as other men are, or even as this 
poor Unitarian." This is the legitimate result of 
Calvinism. I find that all rigid Calvinists are exceed- 
ingly exclusive in their creed, if not in their natural 
feelings. 

Ah, my dear Sir, I have endured the tyranny of this 
faith too long not to dislike it now. I have heard of 
those who had endured captivity so long, that it had 
become a second nature to them, and was preferred to 
liberty. I have heard of the captive, who, when re- 
leased, sighed for his bonds again. The glorious light 
of the unclouded sun was painful to his eye ; the free 
air of Heaven seemed to visit his cheek too roughly ; 
the noise and turmoil of the busy world oppressed and 
distracted him. Poor, pitiable wreck of humanity ! 
Who would wish to be like him ? In consequence of 
suffering, to become so inured to it as actually to prefer 
it to ease, and to restraint, as to prefer it to liberty ! I 
do not thus love my chains. God made us for freedom 
12 



134 BLESSING OF FREEDOM. 

— God made us for happiness ; and sadly to be pitied 
is he who does not prize his liberty and happiness. He 
has lost the image of his God. He is scarcely a man. 
He is but little better than the brutes that perish. 

For my part, I thank God that J am free. I breathe 
the air of religious liberty, and it revives my soul. I 
raise my unshackled hands in gratitude to Heaven, and 
sing aloud for joy. But still I remember the struggle 

— the conflict between light and darkness — the de- 
spairing avowal of a belief which was revolting to my 
very soul ; it was wormwood and gall ; my soul hath 
it in remembrance. 

My eyes are now opened to behold the truth, and 
beauty, and symmetry, of another faith than yours, and 
not all your declarations and bold assertions can turn 
what I behold, into what you assert it to be. Show me 
another scheme of faith, and let me compare it with the 
Bible, but do not attempt to frighten me by hard names 
and dark pictures of your own creation. It is easy to 
dress up a hideous figure, and call it Unitarianism, but 
those who are choosing for eternity will not be very 
readily deceived by any such imaginary creation. 



LETTER XVII. 



SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 

My dear Sir : 

I perfectly agree with you when you remark that 
u the world is uneasy," that u the spirit of God moves 
upon the troubled waters of life." It is even so. The 
world is indeed uneasy, and I am glad of it. We ought 
to be uneasy, there is cause enough for it. Light has 
been breaking in upon us, every science has been ad- 
vancing, the civilized world has made rapid strides in 
every kind of knowledge, the all-important science of 
biblical criticism has received special attention, and new 
light has been thrown upon various passages of the 
sacred word, and yet our minds are to be fettered and 
tied down to the creeds and formularies given to our 
ancestors long, long ago. An alarm is sounded the 
moment men begin to interpret the Bible for themselves. 
Let them be ever so conscientious, let them be ever so 
anxious to avoid error, let them love the Bible ever so 
well, they are denounced the moment they presume to 
read the Bible with their own eyes. In what respect 
does this differ from that religion which entirely with- 
holds the Bible from the people ? I do not want the 



136 



SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 



Bible, unless I can read and understand it for myself. 
Why should I take the trouble to 4i search the Scrip- 
tures," when others are to decide for me just what they 
mean, and just as they please ? But it is too late in 
the day for this. People will think for themselves, let 
it be ever so dangerous to themselves, let it be ever so 
disagreeable or alarming to others. And whenever a 
disposition is shown to curb this spirit of free inquiry, 
it is time to be uneasy. 

I am rejoiced that the human mind is awaking from 
the sleep of ages. Very gradually has it been arousing 
itself from its lethargy ; like the sluggard it has .said, 
u a little more sleep, a little more slumber, a little more 
folding of the hands to sleep ; " but now, to some ex- 
tent, it seems thoroughly awake. Let us all strive to 
give this awakened intellect a right direction. Let 
those who value the Bible as the greatest of their bless- 
ings, teach others to value it also. Let us all go to 
that fountain of truth, and earnestly endeavor to fill 
ourselves with its spirit and with its truth. Let us cling 
to that blessed book as to our only hope. But Oh, let 
us not endeavor to lull the human mind to sleep again 
by that old monotonous cry which you are sounding even 
now in my ears — the cry of mystery — mystery. You 
remark that, "the minds of few persons are unexer- 
cised ; those whom God has chosen are strengthened and 
built up in the great mystery of godliness ; God man- 
ifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit, seen of angels, 
preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, 
received up into glory." Now, I say, let each mind 
judge for itself what is that mystery of godliness, of 



I tim. in. 16. 137 

which the Bible speaks. Let each one gather from the 
Bible how it was that God was manifested in the flesh. 
That this was the fact, we all alike believe. 

You are perhaps aware, that the text just quoted 
should not read " God manifest in the flesh," but that 
Griesbach, whose authority is universally acknowledged 
by Trinitarians as well as others, has decided that the 
word God, in this passage, is not to be found in the best 
ancient manuscripts. In his edition of the New Tes- 
tament, he expresses it, " great is the mystery of god- 
liness ; He who was manifest in the flesh, &c." In 
regard to this text, Sir Isaac Newton says, " what the 
Latins have done to the foregoing,* the Greeks have 
done to that of St. Paul. 1 Tim. iii. 16. For by chang- 
g into 0c, the abbreviation of ©«>?, they now read, 
' Great is the mystery of godliness ; God manifested 
in the flesh.' Whereas all the churches for the first 
four or five hundred years, and the authors of all the 
ancient versions, Jerome, as well as the rest, read, 
c Great is the mystery of godliness, which was mani- 
fested in the flesh.' * * * With the ancienter versions 
agree the writers of the first five centuries, both Greeks 
and Latins. For they, in all their discourses to prove 
the deity of the Son, never allege this text, that I can 
find, as they would all have done, and some of them 
frequently, had they read ' God manifested in the flesh,' 
and therefore they read 9. * * * In all the times of 
the hot and lasting Arian controversy, it never came 
into play ; though now those disputes are over, they 

* Alluding to that well known interpolation, 1st John, v. 7. 

12* 



138 MYSTERY. 

that read c God manifested in the flesh,' think it one of 
the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business." 
(Sir Isaac Newton's History of Two Corruptions of 
Scripture.) 

But why, my dear Sir, are you such a friend to 
mystery ? Why do you not endeavor to enforce it 
upon the minds of all that the religion of the gospel is 
so plain and simple, that the ''wayfaring man, though 
a fool, shall not err therein ? " It is because men have 
not been contented with what is plain and simple in 
religion, but have constructed an elaborate system of 
perplexities which they wish to force upon all mankind, 
upon the peril of losing their title to the name of Chris- 
tian. Religion, as it is taught by Orthodox creeds, is 
anything but plain and simple. It cannot be under- 
stood ; and the only remedy I ever heard prescribed 
for those whose perplexities have made them sick at 
heart, is to receive it all as a sacred mystery, not to 
be rashly inquired into, or rather, not to be inquired into 
at all.* Orthodox Christianity is full of perplexities 
and metaphysical distinctions, utterly incomprehensible 
to plain unlettered men ; this, it appears to me, is not 
the religion of the Bible. 

I have scarcely received a letter in which this text 
concerning the mystery of godliness, incorrectly trans- 
lated as it is, has not been strenuously urged upon me ; 
and after quoting it yourself, you thus proceed : " But 
there are those who will not believe that God has any 
mystery which cannot be fathomed by their finite reason, 

* See Dehon's Sermons, vol. ii. pp. 99, 100. See also Appen- 
dix P. 



AN EXTRACT. 139 

and who plunge without compass or rudder into that 
ocean which is boundless, and where, losing all land- 
marks, they are driven either to the abject submission 
of the Romanists, or else abandon themselves to the 
delusive fancies of the German Neologists, and the 
thousand forms of skepticism which are as various as 
the human countenance; in fact, to that natural religion, 
which is indeed no religion at all, but the mere fancies 
of unguided imagination, or the borrowed light of gos- 
pel morality." 

This is severe enough. But because I cannot be- 
lieve some things which you call mysteries, and which 
you say are revealed in the Bible, but which I call con- 
tradictions, and which I think are not revealed in the 
Bible, why should you take it for granted that I am not 
willing to receive anything which my finite understand- 
ing cannot perfectly fathom ? I protest also against the 
common method of confounding contradictory proposi- 
tions with mysteries, which only mean secret things — 
things which we, from some cause or other, do not or can- 
not know. I am very willing to admit, that there are 
mysteries — secret things — which I cannot comprehend, 
and which yet, as matters of fact, I fully believe. It 
has been revealed to me that my soul is to exist here- 
after ; in this fact I fully believe. Even the fact w 7 as 
once a mystery, but the secret is revealed ; as a matter 
of fact, it is a mystery no longer. What became of the 
soul after death, we well know was a most perplexing 
mystery till life and immortality were brought to light in 
the gospel. But the exact mode of its existence — where 
it will be, how it will be engaged — is still a mystery. 



140 MYSTERIES NOT CONTRADICTIONS. 

Because it has not been revealed, it must therefore re- 
main a mystery till experience or some further revela- 
tion teaches each individual soul how and where it will 
exist hereafter. 

Now, so far as God has revealed anything to us 
concerning his Son, so far the mystery is removed. 
What he has not revealed, we should not attempt to 
explain. It is revealed to us that Jesus Christ was sent 
into the world to save sinners ; that he was sent by 
the Father ; and that he was the brightness of the 
Father's glory, and the express image of his person. 
But it is not revealed that he who sent and he who was 
sent are the same Being ; that there are three distinct 
persons in one God ; that one of these persons pos- 
sessed two distinct natures ; none of these things are 
told us in the Bible, and they are directly opposed to 
all our ideas of individual identity. They are some- 
thing more than mysteries ; to us, they are contradic- 
tions ; and they ought to be distinctly laid down in the 
Bible before we can be expected to believe them. 
But such a thing, I believe, cannot be ; for a revela- 
tion from God cannot contain contradictions. 

It is very much the practice of Trinitarians, when 
pressed with the consequences of their doctrines, con- 
stantly to place things which are above human compre- 
hension, and things contrary to human reason and 
experience exactly on the same level. It is the never 
failing resort ; but it must be a weak and credulous 
mind, indeed, which cannot perceive the difference. I 
do not think this is right, I do not think it fair. In this 
way you strive to narrow down my mind, to restrain it 



EXTRACT FROM ROBINSON. 141 

within the limits of your creed, when it seeks enlarge- 
ment, and longs to feed itself upon the word of God, 
to attain to one degree of light after another. 

On the subject of mysteries, the excellent Robert 
Robinson, who wrote towards the close of the last cen- 
tury, thus remarks : cc Christianity, say some, is often 
called a mystery, or a secret ; even the text calls it so. 
(Eph. iii. 4.) True, but the same text says, Paul knew 
this secret, and the Ephesians might understand what 
he knew of it, if they would read what he wrote to 
them. When ye read, he says, ye may understand 
my knowledge in the mystery of Christ." 

So Paul, in speaking of the mystery of godliness, in 
the text on which we have been commenting, was con- 
ferring with Timothy in regard to the great secret, 
the good news, the mystery of the faith, which they 
both knew, and which Timothy was to reveal to those 
to whom he was sent to preach. But this great secret 
was simple, was plain, when it was revealed — so plain, 
that he who runs may read ; the gospel was for the 
poor, the ignorant, as well as the learned. 

But, says Robinson, " we perceive a wonderful in- 
clination in Christians towards something in religion, so 
sublime as not to be understood ; whereas the true sub- 
limity of religion lies in its plainness, as the true excel- 
lence and dignity of man consist in his becoming such 
a plain man as Jesus Christ was. This inclination is a 
remnant of the old education given by monks and priests, 
whose majesty stood in the credulousness of their fol- 
lowers. They made creeds, or articles to be believed, 
and gave them to our forefathers to say over. You 



421 ON MYSTERIES. 

do not understand them, said they, but we do ; and, 
while they were doing that, the creed-makers ran away 
with their houses and lands. Let us renounce this dis- 
position, and let us believe nothing but what we under- 
stand.'' 

" Alas ! " he exclaims, "we are not employed 
now-a-days in examining and choosing religious princi- 
ples for ourselves, but in subscribing and defending those 
of our ancestors. " 






LETTER XVIII. 



AN EXTRACT. 



My dear Sir : 

I believe that you speak the real feelings of your 
heart when you say, that you u sincerely and prayerfully 
mourn" that I should be "a victim" to what you 
deem a " strong delusion " and " a lie." And you say, 
cc I mourn the more that your constitutional romance of 
disposition seems to make your case the more hopeless. 
You pursue with martyr spirit the abstract idea of Truth, 
or else you would be in no hurry to proclaim your ad- 
herence to Anti-Christ, when you know you must har- 
row the feelings of all your friends, and are taking a 
step which may bring your honored and aged father in 
sorrow to his tomb, or to exclaim with the Psalmist, 
' O that I had died for thee. 5 " 

I am deeply pained and grieved, my dear Sir, that 
any of my friends should be offended with me for ven- 
turing to follow the dictates of my conscience ; but my 
grief and pain are entirely unmixed with any feelings of 
self-reproach. If, when we appear together at the bar 
of God, they could assume my responsibility ; if I were 
very sure of this, I might feel willing to subscribe to just 



1 44 ABSTRACT TRUTH. 

what my friends assert to be the truth of the Bible. But 
I am afraid to do this. Who, of all my numerous friends, 
will take the responsibilty ? Who will ensure my safe- 
ty, if I give up my own opinion, and subscribe to 
theirs ? Will you do it ? Alas ! I fear I shall find no 
such convenient friend. God knows that I am able to 
form some opinion for myself ; he likewise knows that 
I think it wrong not to do this to the extent of the abil- 
ities he has given me ; and he certainly will, and he 
certainly ought to punish me if I do it not. 

In regard to truth, you go on to say : " Truth in its 
abstract has always been an idol with visionaries. The 
unclouded mind views it as a good only by its conse- 
quences. When you speak of the Truth of God as 
necessary to eternal happiness, I can understand it ; 
when truth is divulged which will add to our temporal 
ease I can appreciate its value ; but if I hear a man 
proclaim and devote himself to a truth in physics which 
he acknowledges can be of no practical value, or an 
atheist worshipping as an idol his ideal creed, while ad- 
mitting that at the worst the Christian will suffer no more 
than he, I place them both in the same category of vis- 
ionary and senseless dreamers. Now, let me ask you, 
if you believe any soul ever went to hell, or ever will, 
for believing Christ to be God ? Supposing it then a 
delusion, what good will you effect by a hasty avowal 
of sentiments which can add no security to a soul, and 
may shake the safety of some, and will turn the joy of 
many into mourning, their smiles into tears ? How 
many c passing under the rod,' and soothed and com- 
forted by your muse, will feel they have tasted but the 



ERRONEOUS PREMISES. 145 

bitter ashes of the fabled fruit ; have been lured from 
their grief by a falsity, and comforted by a fraud ! To 
return to that word Truth. If Paul had died to prove 
his faith in Christ with the noble hope of saving souls, 
that would indeed be an object worthy of the sacrifice. 
But suppose he had died to prove what is equally true, 
that Prussic acid is poison, and for no other end than 
the establishment of the fact ; he would have been 
justly called a madman. Do you take my illustration and 
distinction ? Such is your case in avowing your new 
creed." 

I am no metaphysician, and very little of a logician, 
and therefore, for the life of me, I cannot appreciate 
the soundness of your argument, or the justness of the 
parallel you have drawn between Paul's supposed case, 
and my real one. If St. Paul had been required to 
subscribe to a creed asserting that Prussic acid was no 
poison ; if he felt that he was tacitly acknowledging be- 
fore the world what he believed to be untrue every time 
he joined in a prayer or sang a hymn, every time he 
took his seat with his brethren as a member of their 
fraternity, every time, especially, he sang a doxology ; if, 
moreover, he was of the opinion that the general belief 
in regard to Prussic acid was producing general evil ; 
then I think our cases would have been parallel cases, 
and it clearly seems to me it would have been his duty 
to do as I have done. 

If he had joined a society whose fundamental article 

of faith was that Prussic acid was no poison ; if he had 

been generally and prominently known as a member of 

that society, and if he discovered that Prussic acid was 

13 



146 ERRONEOUS PREMISES. 

a poison, and thought, moreover, that the society were 
doing harm, then he would have been bound to leave 
them, and to say why he did it ; especially if they would 
not allow him to withdraw quietly, which the members 
of such societies, and communities in general, are not 
very apt to do. If, on the other hand, there had been 
no such society in the world, and the general belief that 
Prussic acid was no poison had been perfectly harmless, 
Paul would indeed have been a fool and a madman to 
volunteer to die for such a fact ; but I do not see how 
there could have been the least occasion for his death. 
It is only w T hen tests are required of men that they are 
in any danger of losing their lives for opinion's sake. 

Your argument is founded upon what I deem exceed- 
ingly erroneous premises, and therefore it is no argument 
to me. In the first place, you take it for granted that 
a belief in the doctrine of Christ's supreme divinity, 
and consequently in that of the Trinity, is, if a delusion, 
a perfectly harmless one ; to this I do not agree. I 
think, as I have before said, that the habit of assenting 
to contradictory propositions, such as that three are one, 
and that the finite and the infinite meet in the same individ- 
ual, is a habit most injurious to the mind, and leads 
either to credulity or infidelity. It opens a spacious 
door for every absurdity. These doctrines are as con- 
tradictory to reason as the doctrine of transubstantia- 
tion. They are quite as contrary to our experience. 
So far, then, we do not agree in the premises from 
which we start. 

You make no distinction, in the second place, be- 
tween one who is ignorantly subscribing to an error, 






HUMAN CREEDS. 147 

an done who does it, knowing or believing it to be an 
error. Here is a radical distinction, which ought not 
to have been lost sight of. If my mind had never been 
turned to the subject, and I had lived and died worship- 
ping Christ as the Supreme God, I should have been 
perhaps guiltless ; my error would have been involunta- 
ry ; but the moment my attention has been awakened to 
the point, and, upon thorough investigation, I have de- 
cided that it is an error, my moral attitude is changed.* 
If, under my new circumstances. I still remained con- 
nected with a church which I knew would not receive 
me if they imagined what was my belief in regard to 
Christ ; if I still continued to sit with them at the 
Lord's table when I was certain they would shut 
me out if they knew my sentiments, should I not 
be acting the part of a hypocrite ? I leave the decis- 
ion to every candid mind. If you do not agree to 
this, I can only say your code of ethics is very different 
from mine. 

If there were no human creeds in the world — if church- 
es would only require a belief in the only infallible creed, 
the one which our Master left us, which is contained in 
the Holy Bible, and not an assent to this or that inter- 
pretation of the original one, — then we might keep our 
opinions to ourselves. But as the church of my fathers, 
to which I belonged, has a human creed, and I find I 
cannot conscientiously assent to it, how could I remain 
there, and feel that I was pursuing an honest, independ- 
ent course ? Unless, indeed, they w r ould have allowed 
me to remain there after a candid confession of my 

* See Appendix Q. 



148 DANGER OF COMBINATION. 

change of sentiments, and this they could not have 
done consistently with their confession of faith. JVo 
creed but the Bible, is now my motto, and I hope it 
will be till 1 die. And I am becoming more and more 
attached to the simple, congregational mode of church 
government. On this point I am rejoiced to know 
that you and I perfectly agree. I am learning to stand 
more and more aloof from any extensive combination of 
my fellow men for religious, or for any other purposes. 
To single churches and single societies I do not object ; 
their organization is simple, and abuses are easily cor- 
rected ; but the moment their leaders begin to combine, 
I am afraid of them. They wield a power that is dan- 
gerous. Too much consolidation is never to be desired, 
where imperfect man is at the head of affairs. It is 
not best to pledge ourselves to bodies, which, almost 
without our knowledge, may carry us whither we would 
not wish to go. I am well aware that "union is 
strength ; " but I am by no means certain that the 
strength resulting from union will always be well direct- 
ed. If I were sure of this, I would rejoice at the 
spirit of combination, which is a striking feature of our 
times. But, as things are, such combinations are to 
be approached with caution, and always narrowly 
watched. They are too often under the entire control 
of a few leading spirits, whose love of power grows in 
proportion to its acquirement, and increases with their 
success.* I have seen melancholy proofs that very 

* That this was emphatically the case in the general councils of 
the church in former ages, and that it is also true of the general 
assemblies, conventions, indeed of all religious combinations of 



BELIEF NOT VOLUNTARY. 149 

large bodies sometimes go wrong with an impetus that 
is perfectly irresistible and overwhelming, crushing the 
feeble arms which are raised to impede their progress, 
and carrying with them even those who oppose them, 
in one general, headlong, hurrying mass. Nor can they 
always stop where they themselves intended. 

But to return from this digression. I was speaking of 
human creeds. A man who subscribes to a creed en- 
ters into a solemn covenant. I have been accused of 
breaking my covenant engagements. I have broken my 
covenant, it is true. I entered into a solemn engage- 
ment to support and defend the doctrines held by the 
church with which I became united. But, when a 
person can no longer believe what he once believed, 
what is he to do ? Is belief a voluntary thing ? Can 
a person believe just what he chooses ? How can I 
help believing that which I am convinced is true ? The 
moment a man is convinced of the truth of any opinion, 
or set of opinions, they are his opinions. Persecution, 
torture, may compel him to retract them, but they are 
his opinions still, if he still remains convinced of their 
truth. Fire and the sword may make him a hypocrite, 
but they cannot change his opinions. 

When I have before me evidence which convinces 
me that what I once thought true is not true, can I still 

modem times, no one who is much acquainted with their history 
will probably deny. Thus the creeds which we are now required 
to subscribe, — such as the five Calvinistic points, which were 
drawn up at the famous Synod of Dort, were composed under the 
influence of party spirit, and adopted by the Church in conse- 
quence of the votes of an excited majority. 

13* 



150 AN EXTRACT FROM SPARKS. 

believe it ? And if I cannot still believe it, ought I 
still to profess it ? Alas for the man who binds himself 
to support a human creed ; a creed prepared by unin- 
spired men ! He may be placing himself in a melancholy 
position. I cannot more vividly portray his situation than 
by quoting the words of the Rev. Jared Sparks. He 
says: " Those persons who have bound themselves to a 
written system of faith, in the shape of a creed or con- 
fession, which they are resolved never to forsake, or 
which they engage by a solemn covenant always to sup- 
port, as in the case of many clergymen, church-mem- 
bers, and professors in theological institutions ; such 
persons cannot possibly expect or hope to gain any- 
thing by examining their opinions, and comparing them 
with those of others, and with the standard of the 
Scriptures. To change a single sentiment would be a 
violation of their covenant, and a crime. What con- 
scientious man will allow the suspicion to enter his 
mind that anything can be wrong in a faith, which, in 
the most solemn manner, he has pledged his veracity to 
cherish and support ? He may defend his adopted 
creed, and rally round the system to which he is chained, 
but he cannot go a step further. He cannot open his 
mind to a new truth, nor suffer himself to concede, that 
an opponent's argument can have any weight, or his 
opinions any claim to respect. This would be to dis- 
trust the grounds of his own faith, and to betray the 
guilt of doubting, where he has made a sacred engage- 
ment never to doubt. What advantage can a person, 
thus bound and cramped, derive from an examination of 
religious subjects ? The public may be benefitted by 



ON VOWS. 151 

knowing his sentiments, and his mode of explaining 
and defending them ; but, as for himself, his journey 
will be a circle, he will end where he began." 

Is it a question what one who has thus bound himself, 
perhaps inadvertently, and who afterwards changes his 
opinions, is to do ? Can it be a question whether he 
ought to break his vow, or act the hypocrite ? Is not 
a vow, which we find to be a bad one, better broken 
than kept ? Each man must decide this question for 
himself. 

This fact is certain, that such vows are too often 
taken without sufficient thought. Such vows are fear- 
ful things. Would to God I had never taken them ; 
and I would sound a note of warning in the ears of all 
those who are still free. I beseech them to take care 
how they promise to maintain and defend any creed that 
is not expressed in the very words of the Bible , the 
only infallible standard. 



LETTER XIX. 



TRUTH AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 

My dear Sir : 

I confess I have not sufficient mental acumen to 
understand your meaning when you attempt to separate 
Truth from its consequences. How can the conse- 
quences of Truth, in a moral point of view, be bene- 
ficial to us, unless we possess the Truth itself ? How 
can there be effects without a cause ? It is very evi- 
dent that somebody must possess the knowledge of a 
truth before it can affect anybody. You will grant 
that, perhaps. But I may discover, by some chance 
or other, that somebody is mistaken ; and then I can no 
longer say that I believe that person's opinions to be 
true. I know that I may be exposing to you my want 
of metaphysical acuteness, but I cannot help it. I have 
been in the habit of thinking that Truth itself — Truth 
in the abstract — was essentially important ; but this 
may be one of those old fashioned notions which are 
now nearly obsolete. You have not yet convinced me, 
however, that I was mistaken in this old fashioned 
adherence to truth. 



VOLUME OF POEMS. 153 

You have alluded to my volume of poems, written 
especially for the afflicted, or I would not allude to 
them myself. You say that those whom they have 
comforted will find that " they have been lured from 
their grief by a falsity, and comforted by a fraud ! " 
How can that be ? The blessed truths which gave 
them comfort are there still. The volume consists of 
a detail of the real experience of one on whom the 
hand of God was heavily laid ; and I do not see how 
any change of opinion can affect the fact that such was 
my experience then. My change does not affect the 
truth of God. He has promised to be with the afflict- 
ed ; I was afflicted, oh how severely ! and He was 
with me in a most remarkable manner. His promise 
is still held out to the afflicted, and the record of my 
experience is still there. It was no falsity ; it was no 
fraud ; and no change of mine can make it so. « 

This is a delicate subject ; I will pass it by after a 
moment's consideration. It does seem strange to me 
that people should not be able to see that Unitarians 
have, and profess to have, an Almighty Saviour. God 
is their Saviour, through Christ. Whatever God 
does for us, he does for us through Christ. He is the 
chosen medium of communication. Trinitarians prac- 
tically exalt Christ above the Father. Unitarians go to 
the Father, as the Supreme Being, through Christ. 
Another friend, speaking of the volume called " The 
Parted Family," writes : " I do not see how you can 
say that the alteration of a few expressions would make 
the volume agree with your present views. It was the 
Saviour, God, who was near you in your affliction ; at 



154 GOD ; OUR SAVIOUR. 

least you thought so." Yes, I thought so then, and I 
think so now. God, who is emphatically my Saviour, 
was near me by the blessed influences of his Holy 
Spirit — that Comforter, whom Christ promised his 
disciples that the Father ivould send in his name. 
Christ prayed to the Father for this Comforter for his 
beloved disciples, and his prayer was granted. We 
cannot know exactly the manner in which God com- 
forts us ; but if he does it, that, to us, is all-sufficient. 
God says to his people, u besides me there is no 
Saviour." The same friend writes, " I read your 
book of poems through one night with many tears ; read 
it yourself, and believe !" 

Another writes, u Once let it be known that the 
author of * The Parted Family ' has become a Unita- 
rian, and all is lost." Another says? " how little did 
I think, when reading your touching account of the 
wonderful manner in which you were sustained and 
comforted in your hour of need, and with what sweet 
reliance you leaned upon the promises of the Saviour, 
and found peace ; that you would ever wish to take 
from him any of his glory, or deny him his divinity*" 
Do my friends think that the delightful promises which 
Jesus made to his disciples are now expunged from my 
Bible ? And if I believe that he came from the Father 
with divine power and authority, are not those promises 
the same to me as the promises of the Father himself ? 
Assuredly they are. Christ said expressly to his disci- 
ples, " the words that I speak unto you I speak not of 
myself ;" — u all things that I have heard of the Father I 
have made known unto you ; " — " the word which ye 



Christ's words those of the father. 155 

hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me ; " — 
u I have not spoken of myself, but the Father which 
sent me ; he gave me a commandment what I should 
say, and what I should speak ; " — u as the Father hath 
taught me, I speak these things ; " — " I have many 
things to say — I speak to the world those things which 
I have heard of him." Can any declarations be more 
explicit ? Christ over and over again denies speaking 
anything of himself. The promises of Christ, then, 
came from the Father. But have I become an Atheist, 
that the promises of God should be of no account to 
me ? How can any one say, until he knows me to be 
an infidel, that those very promises which supported me 
then, do not support me now ? 

My pen trembles while I quote what you next write, 
but I must do it, to convince you that your appeal has 
not been overlooked. You say : " Remember those 
whom you have seen die, knowing their Saviour to be 
their eternal God ; think well, for you are about taking 
a fearful step. Let memory turn her steps to the dying 
bed of your beloved and noble husband, and pause ere 
you tread a road that may not reach his resting-place. 
Think of your child, now in his Saviour's arms, and be 
sure, ere it be too late, that that Saviour will have room 
for the mother who would make him but an equal. 
Think of that holy man who has just gone to his God* 
— think of his life of faith — his path of purity — his 
holy walk — his peaceful death, and pause before you 
set all these down to mere delusion." 

* My venerable grandfather, Mr. Job Palmer, who died recently 
in Charleston, S.C., at the advanced age of ninety-seven years. 



156 A REPLY. 

You take for granted, my dear Sir, many things 
which I utterly deny and repudiate. God forbid that 
I should set down " to mere delusion " what I have 
seen of the life and death of that venerable patriarch, 
who has left behind him so bright and holy an example 
— the best and noblest legacy he could have bestowed 
on his descendants. He was a conscientious, holy 
man ; his faith in Christ led him closely to imitate 
Christ. However mistaken I may suppose him to have 
been in regard to the metaphysical question of Christ's 
original nature, I know that he considered him as com- 
ing with divine authority, and that he yielded the most 
cheerful and implicit obedience to the requirements of 
his gospel. His faith in Christ then was no " delusion ;" 
it was real ; it was an active, living principle, which, I 
devoutly pray, that all his descendants may possess. 
If, as he did, we receive Christ as the Messiah, as a 
teacher sent from God — and if we live the life that he 
lived, we shall with him sit down at the right hand of 
God, where our "Forerunner" has gone before us. 
I cannot trust myself to dwell upon the other cases to 
which you have so touchingly alluded ; but I hope you 
will believe me when I say, that I have thought seriously 
and painfully upon my change of opinions in connection 
with their memory, and feeling and knowing as I do, 
how conscientious I have been — how anxious for the 
right — how fearful of the wrong — I firmly and joyfully 
believe that T shall not be separated from them when I 
come to die.* 

*See Appendix R. 



EXTRACT AND REPLY. 157 

Your letter thus proceeds : u I may write in vain ; 
argument is the very vanity of man's carnal, petty pride ; 
I know it will not avail. God's Spirit alone can teach 
the wondrous truth which is no mere abstraction, but in 
which are the issues of life and death." I am very 
well aware that this is generally the ground that is taken 
by my friends. Very few of them appear to think it is 
a matter which can be argued, if I am to judge from the 
means which they have used to influence me to give up 
the views I now entertain. But how can I give them 
up till I am convinced they are untrue ? If you will 
convince me, I will joyfully renounce them. In taking 
the steps I have recently taken, I have had everything 
to lose, and nothing to gain ; that is, in the eye of the 
world. I have embraced an unpopular faith ; I have 
placed myself in the minority ; I have grieved my 
friends ; I have almost broken the hearts of my revered 
parents. If I could believe just what I please, I would 
choose to believe as all my friends do ; that would be 
far more pleasant to me than this wide difference of 
opinion. And if, without falsehood and deceit, I could 
profess to believe what I do not regard as true, then all 
this would not have taken place. But while the human 
mind remains what it is — while conviction and belief 
go together, and belief and profession must correspond 
as they ought ever to do — I do not see what is to be 
done, but to let every one believe and profess what his 
conscience dictates. 

Moreover, as long as you take it for granted that the 
truth in regard to the Son of God can be discovered 
only through the special agency of the Holy Spirit 
14 



158 THE HOLY SPIRIT. 

operating on each individual mind ; and furthermore, 
that this truth has certainly been revealed to you, and 
those who think as you do ; and that all those who 
differ from you are thereby proved to be without the 
Holy Spirit ; I do not see how those who are not wil- 
ling to concede these things exclusively to you and 
your sect, can be influenced by your assertions as to 
what is truth and what is not. / also believe that these 
things are taught us by the Holy Spirit, as that Spirit 
has revealed them to us in the Scriptures ; and I be- 
lieve that God gives his Spirit to each individual who 
asks for it in the right way ; not to discover to such an 
individual any new truth, not revealed in the Bible, but 
to help him to discern ichat is there taught. Therefore, 
each individual must, with all the aids he can procure, 
go to the Bible on his own responsibility, and discover, 
as well as he is able, what is contained therein. This 
doctrine of the special illumination of certain individuals, 
at the present day, when miraculous gifts are no longer 
bestowed as our infallible guide, is full of danger. A 
man may teach the most monstrous errors, and say he 
is under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that we 
ought to give him credit for truth in a matter of which 
we cannot possibly judge. But I say, let us depend 
upon no uninspired fallible'man like ourselves ; let each 
one depend upon the Bible, devoutly and honestly 
seeking assistance from God. 



LETTER, XX. 



ELECTION. 



My dear Sir : 

If I held, as you do, the Calvinistic views of the 
doctrine of Election, I should consider any strenuous 
efforts for the spiritual welfare of my friends as a useless 
waste of time, and a profitless expenditure of strength. 
I cannot but believe that those who hold the doctrines of 
unconditional election and reprobation, are inconsistent, 
when they mourn over, labor, and pray for those whose 
fate is irrevocably fixed. But on this point, as on many 
others, the Orthodox theory and practice are essentially 
different. The doctrine too, of the final perseverance 
of saints, as it is called, seems to give you, as well as 
some others among my friends, a good deal of comfort. 
My mother says, that she is consoled by the thought 
that I " have heretofore given good evidence of piety ; " 
and therefore she believes that I will be recovered from 
what she deems my backslidden state. She thus ex- 
presses herself; " while I am writing I am comforted 
by the reflection that you have given evidence that you 
were born of God. If so, and God grant it, he will 
bring you safely to his kingdom of glory." And you 



160 FINAL PERSEVERANCE OF SAINTS. 

also remark, "if you are one of his children, he will 
yet pluck you out of the miry clay, and out of the hor- 
rible pit ; and, if not, all we dare say is to pray earnest- 
ly that he may yet make you the real recipient of his 
gracious gift. I will not, cannot believe he will aban- 
don one of the offspring of his children to the deceit- 
ful delusions of human reason, and I cannot think a 
descendant of that holy man who has just gone to his 
rest will be left to perish." 

I can easily perceive, my dear Sir, how the habit of 
depending for salvation entirely upon the merits of 
another, without regard to any actions of our own, has 
tinctured your whole mind. You evidently place much 
dependence upon the fact of my pious ancestry, which, 
in my view, so far from being any safeguard to me, 
adds fearfully to my responsibility. Their dedication 
of me to God in infancy, their prayers, their efforts, 
can do nothing for me unless I exert myself. All piety 
is strictly personal ; and my anxious friends, while they 
pray for me, must persuade me to live a holy, Chris- 
tian life, or all their prayers will be of no avail. I 
thank them for their solicitude, and I hope they will 
ever set me such an example of love to God and love 
to man, of charity, meekness, and forbearance, that I 
may be perfectly safe in following their footsteps close- 
ly, as they follow Christ. 

But what example of meekness is there in the extracts 
from your letter which follow ? I can see nothing but 
a self-righteous spirit, mingled with a great degree of 
zeal against what you deem error. You call yourself, 
and those who agree with you in merely metaphysical 



i 



EXTRACTS. 161 

and speculative opinions — " God's own people," and 
all others you specify as belonging to " Anti-Christ." 
This is what you say : "I am deeply and fearfully 
impressed with the dreadful truth of that prophecy 
which denounces a woe upon those who deny their 
Saviour as God,* and seek in by-paths to avoid the 
simple way of salvation, so opposed to their carnal na- 
tures only because it is the way of God's appointment. ( !) 
Anti-Christ totters to her fall ; but, alas ! her declining 
years are too truly gilded with the blood of many erring 
souls, and her final ruin will bury numbers dear to God's 
own people ; so that the very triumph of their Master 
will be a heavy cross to their natural affections. But 
God's ways are not as our ways. Once I read the 
inspired book with unalloyed pleasure at the evident 
promise of his coming ; little did I then think the 
foretold precursors would be among kindred and friends. 
I thought to see Anti-Christ triumphing in the distance, 
gathering a short-lived strength from abroad, and finally 
yielding to the mighty hand stretched out against it, 
with a struggle we might see from afar, but never feel. 
But his strides are hitherward, and we have the worm- 
wood and the gall as well as the high consolations and 
hopes they may embitter and tarnish, but cannot over- 
throw." All this is very glowing, and would be quite 
alarming to me if I were conscious that I had gone over 
to the enemies of Christ ; but my conscience acquits 

* If by Saviour you mean Christ — for God is sometimes in the 
Bible called our Saviour — will you tell me where the prophecy 
to which you have alluded may be found ? 
14* 



162 ANTI-CHRIST. 

me of the charge, so your arrows fall harmless to the 
ground. 

The next quotation I shall make is, if possible, in 
still stronger language ; and you include in your anathe- 
mas the whole body of those who hold Arminian senti- 
ments. Speaking of Arminianism, you say, that u he 
who would add an iota to the sufficiency of Christ's 
atonement, detracts from the fulness of his Godhead ; 
and I have long believed all of that creed (that is, all 
Arminians) practically Unitarians, except the self-de- 
ceived theorists who always become thorough Calvinists 
on their knees. You can imagine my uneasiness and 
distress concerning you ; for you know that I cannot 
separate the very and absolute divinity of Jesus from 
religion. It is without Christ, the infinite God, a form 
without substance — a body soulless — a puerility — 
an absurdity. Satisfy me that Jesus is not Jehovah, 
and I am convinced that the Bible is a fable, and Christ 
an Impostor ; * for his Godhead is the light and life of 

* The celebrated Thomas Emlyn says, il I wish they who are 
adversaries to my persuasion, would learn at least the modesty of 
one of the earliest writers for Christianity since the Apostles, I 
mean Justin Martyr." Then after giving his views in regard to 
Christ, he says : " And as for those Christians, who denied the 
above said things, and held him to be only a man, born in the 
ordinary way, he only says of them, to whom 1 accord not. He 
does not damn them, who differed from him, nor say the Christian 
religion is subverted, and Christ but an impostor, and a broken 
reed to trust on, if he be not the very supreme God, (the ranting 
dialect of some in our age ; ) no, but still he was sure he was the 
true Christ (that is, the Messiah), whatever else he might be mis- 
taken in. It is desperate wickedness in men to hazard the rep- 
utation of the truth and holiness of the blessed Jesus upon a diffi- 



AN EXTRACT. 163 

every page ; and considering his audience, and their 
familiarity with the phrase, and the sense they invaria- 
bly attached to it, I can never doubt he designed to 
declare himself Jehovah when he said, c before Abraham 
was, I am.' With these views you must know what I 
think of your present position ; and yet I do not design 
to argue with you ; it is useless, for you will soon aban- 
don it yourself, and will have to be followed elsewhere. 
You are at the first step of most Unitarians ; you 
believe Jesus created, and yet possessed by delegation 
of c all the powers of the Godhead bodily ; ' in short. 
a Deputy God. Now if one possess all the powers 
and attributes of God, he is God ; for we can only con- 
ceive of God by his attributes. But there is only one 
God, therefore by your creed God created or re-created 
himself. This is absurd ; no one ever held it long or 
ever will ; you must go on, reject the atonement, de- 
prive Jesus of all divine attributes, and make him a 
mere man with wonderful virtue, and divinely sustained 
in his mission of example and precept. Here most of 
that branch of Anti-Christ's followers theoretically ar- 
rive ; practically they are Deists, and at heart reject 
revelation ; for no human reason can swallow the mass 
of absurdity their creed contains. Belief in the Gos- 
pel involves the consent to many unexplainable myste- 
ries, but no absurdities ; any departure to either flank 

cult and disputable opinion ; to dare to say, that if they are mistaken 
in their opinion, which I verily believe they are, then Jesus Christ 
is a liar and a deceiver, a mock Saviour, and the like. What is 
this but to expose him to the scorn of infidels ? " 



164 DOGMATISM A SIGN OF WEAKNESS. 

of the grand army does.* I trust God will direct you ; 
these things are in his hands ; if you are his child, he 
will lead or force you back to his fold ; if not, his will 
be done ; though it is hard to say it with a submissive 
spirit, while the heart is still bound up by the earth ties 
that will not sunder until eternity discloses their com- 
parative unimportance." 

I have made a very long extract, my dear Sir, but I 
could not well divide it. I will now take occasion to 
remark upon several of its points, though, in substance, 
I may have done so before. Line upon line is some- 
times necessary when we are called upon to defend 
ourselves ; as we find the attack upon the same point 
is often repeated, though perhaps in a different form, 
and with a variety of weapons. 

But let me first inquire whether it has never occurred 
to you, that a positive and dogmatical assumption of 
superior orthodoxy is often indicative of conscious 
weakness of position, as excessive blustering is gener- 
ally a sign of cowardice ? And as no man will so 
watchfully and jealously guard the rights of his fellow 
men as he who rightly guards his own, so no man will 
be more ready to encroach upon the rights of others, 
than he who has, perhaps unconsciously, surrendered his 
own. An old writer has somewhere said, that " no one 
is so anxious to impose his opinions on others as he who 
has imposed upon himself;" and general observation 
and experience will convince every reflecting man of 
the truth and sagacity of the remark. Therefore, with 

* See Appendix S. 



ARMINIANS. 165 

most minds, a mild, firm, yet humble expression of 
opinion has much more weight than a positive assertion 
of right ; and if good reasons can be assigned, why, so 
much the better, of course. Let those who are in- 
clined to dictate and dogmatize, think seriously of this ; 
they will find that they sometimes unconsciously defeat 
their own ends by the exhibition of a spirit which some- 
times betrays the weakness of their cause.* 

I am amazed at your sweeping assertion concerning 
Arminians. I wonder that you are willing to consign 
them all over to the ranks of the enemy — to place them 
with infidels and Deists ; — for you perceive that in the 
latter part of the long extract I have made, you call 
Unitarians deists and infidels, and in the first part of 
it you say that you have long regarded Arminians as 
Unitarians. Taking the two assertions together, there- 
fore, you would make it out that all Arminians are also 
deists and infidels. Is this Christian charity ? Is it 
the spirit of the gospel ? That it is the spirit of Cal- 
vinism I do not doubt ; but that it is the mild, delight- 
ful spirit of the Christian religion — the religion of the 
meek and lowly Jesus — I do not believe. It is the 
spirit that enacted the scenes which disgraced the synod 
of Dort, which afterwards kindled and fanned the flames 

* " As Plutarch," says Hales, " reports of a painter, who hav- 
ing unskilfully painted a cock, chased away all cocks and hens, 
that so the imperfection of his art might not appear in comparison 
with nature ; so men willing for ends to admit of no fancy but 
their own, endeavor to hinder an inquiry into it, &c." Men who 
are in earnest in their search after truth, it will not be very easy 
to " chase away " by arbitrary assertions and alarming representa- 
tions. 



166 CHRIST NOT THE INFINITE GOD. 

of persecution, which sent Benevelt to the scaffold, 
which consigned the learned Grotius to a dungeon, 
which hurried Michael Servetus to the stake. 

You say you cannot separate the very and absolute 
divinity of Jesus from religion. I really suppose, that, 
with your present views, you cannot ; but is that any 
reason why others may not be able to do it ? I could 
not do it once ; but the idea of the absolute divinity of 
my Master forms no part of my religion now. c< With- 
out Christ, the infinite God," you say, it is to you " a 
form without substance, a body soulless, a puerility, an 
absurdity." But it is not so to me. I can conceive 
of only one infinite God, not three. If Jesus be, as 
you say he is, the u infinite God," then, so is the 
Father the infinite God ; and so is the Holy Spirit ; 
and it follows that there are three infinite Gods. But 
I cannot conceive of three infinite Beings in the uni- 
verse. If the Son, the second person in the Trinity, 
be the cc infinite God," you must either blot out from 
the universe the other persons of the Trinity, the infi- 
nite and universal Father, and the Holy Spirit, — or 
you must, of necessity, believe in three infinite Beings, 
which you yourself will probably acknowledge to be an 
"absurdity." Nothing can be added to what is infi- 
nite ; and if the Son of God be cc infinite," he, the 
Son, is the only God. But how different is this doc- 
trine from that which Jesus taught us. " The Son," 
he tells us, u can do nothing of himself," — u the 
Father which sent me, he doeth the works." He bids 
us pray to the Father, not to God, — which term Trin- 
itarians would understand as including the whole Trinity; 



THE TRINITY. 167 

but the term he uses is the Father, plainly showing that 
he did not mean himself, for he certainly, even if God, 
is not the Father. And if he was the u infinite God," 
and equal with the Father, it seems passing strange, 
that, when his disciples expressly besought him to teach 
them how to pray, he should have made no mention of 
himself at all. If the doctrine of the Trinity be true, I 
do not see how Christ could have directed us to pray to 
the Father, and why he did not use the more compre- 
hensive term, God. The Father, according to that 
doctrine, is only the third part of the Godhead, and 
therefore is not the whole God. If you are shocked at 
this, and say he is the whole and perfect God, then, 
according to your hypothesis, so is the Son, and so is 
the Spirit, and you make three whole and perfect Gods. 
If you say they cannot be thus separated, and when you 
pray to one you pray to the whole, then, I say, you 
make your Master teach a very great error ; for he always 
speaks of the Son as being distinct from the Father. 
Again, if the Son is only the third part of the Godhead, 
he is not the infinite God. If, again, you say that he, 
the Son, is God, then again I say that so is the Father, 
and so is the Spirit, and once more there are three Gods. 
If you still say that it is only when taken together that 
they are God, then I say, that, taken separately, they 
cannot be Gods ; the Son, the second person, is not 
God, because the other persons are left out ; the Spirit, 
the third person, is not God, for the same reason ; and 
you take from us also the first person, the Father — the 
God of the Bible. 

But how different is your idea of the divinity of the 



168 THE TRINITY. 

Son from the ideas held by the Trinitarians of the early 
ages. They did not regard the Son as the infinite God. 
Origen certainly taught his inferiority to the Father. 
But this point you will see more fully discussed in the 
3d and 22d letters. In regard to your assertion that 
without Christ, the infinite God, religion is an " ab- 
surdity," I will remark, that, to me, the absurdity 
appears to be all the other way. To believe that 
Christ, " the infinite God," was sent into the world by 
the infinite God, while he was all the time sounding in 
our ears the fact that he did not come of himself — that 
he was sent to do the will of another, which other, 
according to your hypothesis, was himself — for there 
can be but one infinite God — seems, to me, much more 
like an absurdity than anything in the Unitarian faith. 
Christ is indeed, as you say, the " life and light of every 
page of the New Testament," but it is not as the infinite 
God that he there lives and shines. It is as the Mes- 
siah — the Son of God — who was sent by the com- 
passionate Father, that all who believe might have 
eternal life. 



LETTER XXI. 



THE PHRASE "I AM. 53 

My dear Sir : 

I will now consider the import of the phrase u / 
am" as presented in the extract which forms the sub- 
ject of the foregoing letter. You remark that, "con- 
sidering Christ's audience, and their familiarity with the 
phrase, and the sense they invariably attached to it, 
you can never doubt he designed to declare himself 
Jehovah, when he said, before ' Abraham was, I am.'" 
It is contended by many learned men that the Greek 
phrase here translated, "I am," is invariably used to 
mean, I am /ie, that is, the Messiah. Twice before, 
in this chapter, the same Greek phrase is introduced, 
and in both instances it is rendered by the translators of 
our common version, "I am kef 9 *, it occurs in the 
twenty-fourth and twenty-eighth verses. Why king 
James's translators saw fit to render this verse differ- 
ently from the others, it is impossible with certainty to 
decide, though the reason may be very easily conjec- 
tured. It certainly would not have injured the sense of 
the verse to add, as they had done in the two former 
verses, the pronoun he, and it would have prevented 
15 



170 THE PHRASE "l AM." 

much controversy. To show that in the 28th verse 
Christ was speaking of himself as the Messiah, and not 
as God, he says, u then shall ye know that I am he, 
and that I do nothing of myself." The same expres- 
sion may also he found in John iv. 26 ; xiii. 19 ; xviii. 
5, 6, 8, and in every instance it is translated, "lam 
he." 

In Exodus iii. 14, the term u i am," is used as a 
proper name, and applied hy Jehovah to himself; " thus 
shalt thou say to the children of Israel, i am hath sent 
me unto you." The sentence is perfect and complete. 
Whereas, if, in the verse under consideration, the 
phrase is to be understood in the same sense — as a 
proper name, the sentence is an incomplete and unmean- 
ing one. Read it thus, understanding "I am" as a 
proper name, and you will discover this, for the proper 
noun is entirely without its corresponding verb. But 
read it with the pronoun he understood, and it is a com- 
plete sentence ; though the use of the present tense in 
connection with the past strikes the ear of a grammarian 
singularly and unpleasantly. The biblical critic Wake- 
field says, "the peculiar use of the present tense in the 
usage of Scriptural expressions is to imply determination 
and certainty ; as if he had said, ' my mission was settled 
and certain before the birth of Abraham.' " 

It is clear from Scripture, and from the early fathers 
that the Jews did not understand Jesus to have an- 
nounced himself as the infinite God by this or any other 
expression. Sparks, in his "Inquiry," plainly proves 
that the early Trinitarians did not think that the doctrine 
of the Trinity was taught, either by Christ or his Apos- 



EARLY TRINITARIANS. 171 

ties, so as to be understood at the time. This is a 
point of much importance ; and as most of my friends 
may not be able very easily to obtain the work to which 
I have alluded, I shall not scruple to avail myself and 
them of the erudite labors of Professor Sparks, by 
quoting largely from his book. The extracts I shall 
make are taken from a work entitled "An Inquiry into 
the comparative moral tendency of Trinitarian and 
Unitarian doctrines, in a series of letters to the Rev. 
Dr. Miller, of Princeton." Those who can obtain 
access to the work will be amply rewarded for their 
labor if they will give it an attentive perusal. It cannot 
fail to enlarge their ideas, liberalize their minds, and 
add greatly, perhaps, to their store of general know- 
ledge. 

" The opinion," he says, cc that the Trinity is plainly 
taught in the Scriptures, has not generally prevailed 
till of late. So far were Trinitarians from holding such 
an opinion in former times, that in nothing did they 
exercise their ingenuity more than in devising reasons 
why this doctrine should be only obscurely shadowed 
forth by the Saviour and the Apostles, and why it 
should be kept concealed from the Jews. 

"This subject merits discussion," he says, "not 
because it affects the Scriptural evidence in regard to 
the truth or falsehood of the doctrine ; but because it is 
intimately connected with the presumption of making 
the Trinity a necessary article of faith, which all per- 
sons must believe before they can be called Christians, 
or hope for salvation. If the primitive Christians knew 
nothing of this doctrine, it is absurd to clothe it with so 



172 EXTRACT FROM SPARKS. 

much importance ; nay, it is absolutely putting a false 
character upon the religion of Jesus, and deceiving the 
humble inquirer into a fatal reliance on things which 
can have no good tendency on his religious or moral 
conduct. In this light the subject is worth pursuing." 

Professor Sparks then goes back to the time of the 
Saviour and of his Apostles ; refers to the first believers 
in Christianity ; to the early and later Fathers ; to the 
Catholics after the Reformation ; to some of the first 
reformers ; to the Arminians of Holland ; and to emi- 
nent English divines ; and clearly shows " with how 
little discretion the Trinity is now affirmed to be plainly 
taught in the Scriptures ; and with how little regard to 
consistency it is imposed as a necessary article of 
faith.'\ 

That it is not explicitly taught in the Scriptures 
appears to me so plain, that all attempts to prove the 
fact seem superfluous ; yet when men insist upon it as a 
fundamental article of faith, and affirm a denial of it to 
be a a soul ruining error," the proof becomes important 
and even necessary. Professor Sparks proves that it 
is not thus taught. I have been glancing my eye over 
the pages of his work, and find every word that he says 
so important — so much to the point in my argument 
with you — and so much better said than anything I 
could say, that I shall probably lay the whole of it 
before you, trusting that I shall be excused by the 
author for giving myself such latitude. 

" In the first place, then," he says, " it will not be 
denied that the great design of the revelations, con- 
tained in the Old Testament, was to acquaint the Jews 



EXTRACT FROM SPARKS. 173 

with the true nature of God ; nor will it be denied, that 
from all these revelations, they had no conceptions of 
any other mode of existence, than that of his simple 
unity. It was perpetually enforced upon them, as a 
fundamental truth, that 'the Lord their God was one.'' 
No history, either sacred or profane, acquaints us with 
a single fact, from which it can be inferred, that the 
Jews had any knowledge of a three-fold nature in the 
Deity. On the contrary, all history is against such an 
inference ; and the demonstrable certainty, that these 
people, for whose light and improvement the Old Testa- 
ment was expressly designed, never had the remotest 
suspicion of such a doctrine being contained in their 
sacred books, is the clearest possible evidence, that it 
is not plainly taught there, whatever may now be dedu- 
ced from types, and shadows, and dark sayings, and 
Hebrew idioms, and double meanings. 

" And, again, where does it appear that the people 
to whom our Saviour preached, understood him to 
discribe God as existing in a three-fold nature ? Or, 
to put the question in a more direct shape, where does 
it appear, that in one instance, he spoke of him as any 
other, than the one true God ? The only history we 
have of the opinions of that period is contained in the 
gospels ; and there we are made to know, as distinctly 
as we can be made to know, that Christ ascribes all 
things to one Being, whom he calls the Father and the 
Creator # * *." 

w The sentiments of the people, as far as we can 
learn, were in exact accordance with these traits of his 
conduct and instructions. Were their actions, or their 
15* 



174 EXTRACT FROM SPARKS. 

conversation, or their behavior towards him such, as 
would be expected, if they believed the Supreme 
Jehovah to be with them in bodily presence ? * This 
question applies equally in regard to his disciples and 
his enemies. When he healed a sick man by a miracle, 
1 the multitude marvelled, and glorified God, who had 
given such power unto men.'' They did not marvel, 
that God had come down on the earth, but that he had 
clothed with such power a man in all appearances like 
themselves. Mary said to him, after the death of Laza- 
rus, c If thou hadst been here, my brother had not died.' 
When she spoke these words, could she have believed 
him to be the infinite God, who is every where equally 
present with his love and his power ? Many examples 
of this sort might be added, were it necessary ; but no 
one, it is presumed, will undertake to prove it to have 
been a prevailing opinion among the contemporaries of 
our Saviour, that he was God, or that in the nature of 
God were three distinct persons, f The testimony and 
probability are against such a result ; and it would be 
no better than presumptuous, idle conjecture, to repre- 
sent the Trinity as plainly taught, if taught at all, in our 
Saviour's immediate instructions." 

" When we come to the preaching of the Apostles, 
we hear nothing of their promulgating a Trinity. We 
have a minute account of their preaching written by 
St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles ; and we here 
look in vain for any place in which they teach the deity 
of Christ, or the existence of a Trinity. Nor can it be 

* See Appendix T. t See Appendix U. 



EXTRACT FROM SPARKS. 175 

inferred from anything said or done by their hearers, 
that they understood them to publish such doctrines. 
* * * In short, it cannot be proved that the persons 
instructed by the Prophets, the Saviour, and the Apos- 
tles, had any notions of a Trinity ; while on the con- 
trary, almost every page of the Bible is loud in proclaim- 
ing the divine unity, and in establishing the fact, that 
this was the faith of all true believers. Inference, in 
this case, cannot be admitted as argument. If the 
Trinity be anything, it is as essential to the divine nature 
as the Unity, and if one was as plainly taught as the 
other, we should have the same evidence of their having 
been equally believed.* We have no such evidence, 
but abundance to the contrary, and this is enough to 
justify us in affirming, that the Trinity was not preached 
by the Saviour and his Apostles in such a manner as to 
be understood at the time." 

* It might be added that as one is so much more incomprehen- 
sible than the other, so much the more necessary that it should be 
plainly taught. 



LETTER XXII. 



EXTRACTS FROM EARLY WRITERS. 

My dear Sir : 

I will now adduce the evidence which is brought 
by Professor Sparks from early ecclesiastical writers. 
He says : " Let us see, in the next place, how this 
result (at the conclusion of the last letter) agrees with 
some of the early fathers. We shall here find almost 
a universal opinion that the deity of Christ was not 
plainly taught in the Scriptures ; and as for a Trinity 
of persons, nothing is heard of it, till the deity of the 
Holy Spirit was decreed by the council of Constanti- 
nople, near the close of the fourth century. A few 
passages shall be here introduced, merely to substantiate 
the fact, that in their opinion the Trinity was not 
explicitly taught, either in the Old Testament or the 
New." 

" Athanasius allows, that Christ did not make known 
his deity to the Jews, and endeavors to account for it, 
by intimating, that the world could not yet bear such a 
doctrine. And he adds, ' I venture to affirm, that even 
the blessed disciples themselves had not a clear know- 
ledge of his deity till the Holy Spirit came on them at 



THE FATHERS. 177 

the day of Pentecost.' # This passage has a compre- 
hensive import, and proves most clearly, that, in the 
opinion of Athanasius, the deity of Christ was not 
known even to the Apostles till after his death. Theo- 
doret speaks to the same purpose. ' Before his death 
and sufferings, the Lord Christ, did not appear as God, 
either to the Jews generally or to his Apostles.' f 
'Chrysostom often intimates, that Christ made but an 
imperfect indication of his deity to his disciples. On 
one occasion he observes, c Christ did not immediately 
reveal his deity ; at first he was thought to be a prophet, 
Christ, simply a man, but at last from his works and 
sayings, it appeared what he was.' £ Chrysostom 
further says, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, did not 
herself know the secret of his being the Supreme 
God." § 

u The Fathers, also, acknowledged, that after the 
death of Christ the Apostles did not teach this doctrine 
openly ; as we learn from the hypothesis framed by 
them to account for the fact. They profess to consider 
it a mark of prudence and caution in the Apostles to 
avoid promulgating so unpopular a tenet. It would 
shock the prejudices of the Jews, on the one hand, 
who thought the unity of God a vital doctrine ; and on 
the other hand, it would encourage the heathens in their 
polytheism and idolatry ; and thus serious obstacles 
would be thrown in the way of their converting either 

* Serm. Major de Fid. Montf. Coll. Vol. II, p. 39. 
t Opera, Vol. Ill, p. 15. Ed. Hal. 
t Opera, Vol. VIII. p. 20. 
§ Ibid. Vol. III. p. 289. 



178 THE FATHERS. 

the Jews or Gentiles to Christianity. It was deemed 
wise, therefore, to conceal for a time a doctrine of such 
dangerous tendency. 

u Let the Fathers speak on this point. Chrysostom 
acquaints us, that our Saviour confined himself to in- 
structions concerning his human powers, by reason of 
the c weakness of his hearers, and the inability of those 
who saw and heard him for the first time, to receive 
more sublime discourses.' * He makes the same re- 
mark in commenting on the introductory words of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. f QEcumenius says, in re- 
marking on the text, There is one God, the Father, 
and one Lord Jesus Christ, that c The Apostle speaks 
cautiously of the Father and the Son, calling the Father 
one God, lest they should think there were two Gods, 
and the Son one Lord, lest they should think there 
were two Lords.' J In commenting on another text, 
we have the following remark of Theophylact : £ Be- 
cause polytheism then prevailed, the Apostle did not 
speak plainly of the deity of Christ, lest he should be 
thought to introduce many Gods.' § Again, ' As others 
had made no mention of the existence of the Logos 
before the ages, John taught this doctrine, lest the 
Logos of God should be thought to be a mere 
man.' " || 

* Opera, Vol. I. p. 409. 

t Ibid. Vol. X. p. 1756, in Heb. Cap. I. 

t Opera, Vol. I. p. 492, Ed. Lutet. 1631. 

§ Comment, in 1 Tim. II. 5. 

|| Comment, in Matt. Praef. p. 1, 2. The original of all the 
above passages, as well as many others of the same kind, may be 
seen in Priestley's History of Early Opinions, Vol. III. B. 3. 



THE FATHERS. 179 

" From these sentiments of the Fathers, it may justly 
be inferred, that, in their opinion, no such doctrine as 
the Trinity, nor even the deity of Christ, is plainly set 
forth in the Scriptures. They all agree that our Saviour 
did not thus teach, and Athanasius represents the Apos- 
tles as ignorant of his deity, till the day of Pentecost, 
which was some time after his death. And when in- 
structed in this sublime truth, they are described as 
studiously avoiding to divulge it, lest offence might be 
given to weak minds, and to the unconverted. We 
must remember that these were the opinions of men, 
who for the most part believed in the divinity of Christ 
in some sense, and were solicitous to find a reason why 
the Scriptures were so silent upon the subject. The cir- 
cumstance of their forming an hypothesis makes it 
evident, that they did not see the Trinity in the writings 
of the Apostles. Theophylact, it is true, and some 
others, believed John to have been more bold, and to 
have spoken more to the point in regard to this doc- 
trine ; but this is no other than saying, that it is not 
taught anywhere else, for John was the last of the sa- 
cred writers. 

"Dr. Horsley thought to weaken the force of the 
above conclusion, by supposing that it was the unbeliev- 
ing Jews only, towards whom the caution, or, as he 
prefers to call it, the c sagacity ' of the Apostles was 
exercised. To persons of this description the plainer 
parts of the Christian faith were preached, and when 
they had become partially initiated, the deeper myste- 
ries of the Trinity were brought to their knowledge. A 
conjecture so forced hardly deserved the notice which 



180 THE APOSTLES. 

Dr. Priestley condescended to give it. # Where do we 
hear of the Apostles preaching in private ? They 
preached openly to Jews and Gentiles, converted 
and unconverted. Were not their writings intended for 
the instruction of the whole Christian world 9 And is 
it to he admitted, that the most essential parts of the 
true faith were left out to accommodate the unbelieving 
Jews of that day ? " f 

* Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 45. London, 1815. 

t "■ In resorting to this device, Dr. Horsley concedes the main 
point after all, which is, that Athanasius could not find the Trinity 
in the writings of the Apostles. ' In their public sermons,' says 
Dr. Horsley, ' addressed to the unbelieving multitude, they were 
content to maintain that Jesus, whom the Jews had crucified, was 
risen from the dead ; without touching his divinity otherwise than 
in remote allusions; but to suppose, that they carried their converts 
no greater length, is to suppose that their private instruction was 
not more particular, than their public' Letters in reply to Dr. 
Priestley, p. 200, American Ed. 1821. The only difference between 
Priestley and Horsley seems to be, that Priestley thought the Apos- 
tles did not teach at all any important doctrines not contained in 
their writings; and Horsley conjectured that these were taught 
secretly. 

" Jamieson labors this point with his usual prolixity. By quo- 
ting largely from Athanasius, he succeeds in proving, that he was 
accustomed to contradict himself, and from this circumstance seems 
half inclined to doubt the import of the passage, which made 
Priestley and Horsley believe, that Athanasius did not think the 
Trinity openly taught by the Apostles. As for the innumerable 
specimens of corroborative testimony collected by Dr. Priestley 
from other Fathers, Jamieson says, ' It would serve no good pur- 
pose to follow him through this labyrinth.' Vindication, Vol. I, p. 
293. This was a summary mode of laying out of the account some 
of the strongest parts of the work, which he was engaged to an- 
swer. He actually admits, as Horsley had done, the main point 
at issue, and proceeds to commend the judgment and prudence of 



ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS. 181 

"From the Fathers we may descend to the later 
writers in the Catholic church, who were ardent defend- 
ers of the Trinity, but have not considered it a Scrip- 
ture doctrine. On this subject Chillingworth says to a 
Catholic, ' As for Scripture, your men deny very plainly 
and frequently, that this doctrine can be proved by it.' * 
But the dogma of the Trinity was in the creeds, and 
therefore must be defended. Tradition was invoked 
with success, but without any appeal to the authority of 
Scripture. Wolzogenius has collected the sentiments 
of several writers of the Romish Church, a kw speci- 
mens of which shall be here adduced. 

u Petavius, in his celebrated work on the Trinity, 
speaks as follows : ' Concerning the three persons of 
the divinity, and their essence, nothing was fully written 
or known, before the council of JNice, because this 
mystery was not revealed and confirmed, till after the, 
conflict between the JLrians and Catholics.' f Sacro- 
boscus tells us, also, that as the Arians appealed to the 
Scriptures in support of their opinions, they were not 
condemned by the Scriptures, but by tradition. :f The 

the Apostles in keeping the Trinity a secret. He takes up the 
clue of the unbelieving Jews, which Horsley had dropped, and 
pursues it with great diligence." Ibid. p. 294-313. 

* Preface to the Author of Charity Maintained, sec. 17. In 
support of this assertion, Chillingworth refers to Hosius De Au- 
thor. Sec. I. iii. p. 53; to Huntlaeus, De Verbo Dei, c. 19; t» 
Gretserus, Zannerus, Vega, Possevin, Wickus, and others. 

t De Trinitate, lib. i. cap. 1, sec. 3. 

t Concilii Nicaeni Patres ex doctrina non scripta, sed per ma- 
nus Patrum sibi tradita, eos damnarunt. Defensio Trid. Concii. 
cap. 6. 

16 



182 ROMAN CATHOLIC WRITERS. 

Jesuit Scarga writes, that the ' Apostles were at first 
accustomed to conceal the dogma of the Trinity on ac- 
count of its difficulty ; ' and that Paul did not preach 
the deity of Christ to the Athenians, lest they should 
think he meant to introduce a multitude of Gods.* 
According to Bellarmine, c since the Arians could not 
be convinced out of the Scriptures, because they inter- 
preted them differently from the Catholics, they were 
condemned by the unwritten word of God, piously un- 
derstood.' f In commenting on the text, in which Christ 
tells his disciples, that he has many things to say to 
them, which they cannot hear, Salmeron says he refers 
to the three persons in one God, and the two natures in 
Christ. | Remundus warns the Lutherans and Calvin- 
ists, that if they rely on the Scriptures alone, they will 
be obliged to yield to the modern Arians, not less than 
were the Fathers to the Arians of old, and he admon- 
ishes them to take refuge in tradition, and the consent 
of the church. § 

u From these sentiments of Trinitarian writers, it is 
obvious, that, whatever may have been their zeal for a 
Trinity, it was a common opinion in the Catholic Church, 
that this doctrine was not to be supported from the 

* Apostoli dogma trinitatis initio reticere soliti sunt, propter 
ipsius difficultatum. 

t De Verbo Dei. lib. IV. cap. 3. 

t Comment, in Joh. xvi. 12. 

§ Historia de Ortu et Progressu Haeres. part I. lib. 2, cap. 15. 
For these testimonies, and others to the same purpose, see Wolzo- 
gen's Praeparat. ad Util. Section. Librorum Nov. Test, cap 20. 
See, also, Unitarian Miscellany. Vol. I. p. 329-332; vol. II. p. 
81 - 90. 



CATHOLICS, LUTHERANS AND ARMINIANS. 183 



Scriptures. Let all due allowance be made for their 
love of tradition, it will hardly be urged, that this fond- 
ness would make them contented with resting so impor- 
tant a dogma on tradition alone, if they felt secure in 
having a just claim to the additional and irresistible 
weight of the revealed word of God. And least of all, 
as Wolzogenius observes, would they have used this 
argument to those, who put no confidence in any tradi- 
tion not sanctioned by the plain language of the Bible. 
All parties held up the Scriptures as their standard, and 
if the Catholic doctors had believed them to contain the 
Trinity, it would seem the part of wisdom and policy, 
if nothing else, first to entrench themselves with this 
authority, and then to build up the outworks of tradi- 
tion. 

u Many distinguished Trinitarian writers among the 
early Lutherans, were of opinion, that their doctrine 
could not be found in the Old Testament. Wolzoge- 
nius mentions particularly the learned Calixtus, professor 
of theology at Helmstadt, and also Dreger, Leterman, 
Behm, and some others." 

Professor Sparks next brings forward the Arminian 
writers in proof of the same point ; but as you have 
classed them with Unitarians and Infidels, I suppose you 
would not give much weight to their authority. Passing 
over, then, such unworthy witnesses, we come next to 
the Calvinists and Trinitarians of later times. Among 
these, says Professor Sparks, there have not been 
wanting " those, who confessed the silence, or at least 
the obscurity of the Bible on this subject. The zeal- 
ous and violently orthodox Jurieu, who ranked a denial 



184 



DR. WATTS. 



of the Trinity among the greatest possible heresies, did 
not pretend, that this doctrine was known in its proper 
shape till the council of Nice. He proves from the 
ancients, that, during the three first centuries, the 
opinion was universal, that the Son was not equal to the 
Father, nor his existence of the same duration.* 

u Dr. Watts, while he was yet a Trinitarian, con- 
fesses, that our Saviour spoke of himself with reserve, 
when alluding to the mystery of his nature. When the 
young man called Jesus good master, he said in reply, 
£ Why callest thou me good ? There is none good but 
one, and that is God.' f Since he chicles the young man 
for ascribing to him an attribute, which he tells him 
belongs only to the Supreme Being, no words could be 
more explicit in testifying that he was not himself that 
Being. Dr. Watts felt the difficulty, and ventured on 
the following explanation. c Our Saviour did not 
choose to publish his own divinity, or oneness with 
God, in plain and express terms to the people, but 
generally by such methods of inquiry and insinuation. ' \ 
That is, according to this example, by insinuating, that 
he was not what he actually was. And the same will 
follow from many other parts of Scripture, where, if 
Christ were God, his language was calculated to deceive 
the people. Watts does not stop with the Trinity, but 
extends the designed ambiguity of our Saviour's lan- 
guage to other doctrines, and especially to the atone- 

* Ben Mord. Apol., Vol. I. p. 46. Jortin's remarks on Ecclesi- 
astical History, Vol. II. p. 29. 
t Matt. xix. 17. 
t Watts's Works, Vol. III. p. 621. Lond. 1810. 4to. 



SMALRIDGE AND ATTERBURY. 185 

ment. When he preached this doctrine, says Watts, 
it was ' rather in secret to his disciples, or, if in public, 
it was generally in dark sayings, and parables, and 
mystical expressions. ' * In most cases, such a mode 
of explanation and defence would be thought no better 
than giving up the point. Watts, however, in imitation 
of the Fathers, makes a merit of his difficulties, and 
charges them all to the prudence and caution of the 
Saviour. One of the most remarkable things about the 
matter is, that he could not persuade his conscience to 
approve the exercise of Christian charity towards those, 
who could not see as he did this doctrine taught by the 
Saviour only in secret, in dark sayings, and mystical 
expressions. There never w T as a more striking instance 
of the power of orthodoxy to narrow the mind, and shut 
up the heart, f 

" In Bishop Smalridge's Sermon on the use of Reason, 
after speaking of the Trinity as described in the Arti- 
cles, Liturgy, and Creeds, he observes : ' It must be 
owned that this doctrine is not in so many words taught 
in the Holy Scriptures. What we profess in our 
prayers, we nowhere read in Scripture, that the one 
God, the one Lord, is not only one person, but three 
persons in one substance. But although these truths 
are not read in Scripture, yet they may easily, regu- 
larly, and undeniably be inferred from Scripture. If, 
indeed, it can be shown, that these inferences are wrong, 
they may safely be rejected.' J Atterbury advances 

* Watts's Works, Vol. III. p. 637. 
tlbid. Vol. III. p. 578. 
t Smalridge's Sermons, Folio, p. 348. 
16* 



186 TRADITION AND INFERENCE. 

similar sentiments, and seems to think it an advantage 
to Christianity that this doctrine and others should be 
expressed so obscurely. It affords a trial of our faith, 
which we could not have, if all were plain and positive ; 
and, therefore, it is rather a benefit, than otherwise, that 
the Trinity should be partially and darkly made known 
in the Scriptures.* 

ct Such have been the opinions of many of the most 
learned and respectable Trinitarians in all ages of the 
Christian Church ; they have defended the Trinity, not 
on the ground of its being clearly taught, but solely as 
a doctrine of tradition, or of inference. Some have 
inclined to one, and some to the other, according to the 
period and country in which they lived. When tra- 
dition was more in vogue than at present, this was made 
to bear the burden of proof ; but when, in the progress 
of inquiry and knowledge, this refuge of the dark ages 
was stripped of its authority, a broader foundation was 
to be sought out for the Trinity. The Bible was now 
taken up in earnest ; where the Trinity was once seen 
darkly, even by the keen eyes of wisdom and learning, 
it now came out in such bright and imposing colors as 
to be distinctly perceived by the shortest vision ; it 
was discovered to be at the bottom of every religious 
truth ; from the first verse of Genesis to the last chapter 
of Revelations, the whole Bible was full of the Trinity. 

u It is worthy of special observation, however, that 
it has never been formally defended as a plain doctrine 
of Scripture ; nor in Christendom is there a creed in 

* Atterbury's Sermons and Discourses on several subjects and 
occasions, Vol. III. p. 266, 267. 



INFERENCE. 187 

which it is expressed in Scripture language ; nor is it 
ever defined in this language by those who are loudest 
in proclaiming it a plain Scripture doctrine. It is 
deduced by inference, and inference only. When the 
matter is brought to the test, it is not pretended that 
Christ was ever called God, the same Being as the 
Father, or the Supreme Jehovah. All that is pretend- 
ed comes to no more than this, that many things are 
said of Christ, which it is supposed could not be said of 
him if he were not God. This is called an argument, 
and then follows the inference, that he was God. So 
in regard to the Holy Spirit, to which certain charac- 
teristics are ascribed, that are supposed to be peculiar 
to the Supreme Being, and hence comes the inference, 
that the Holy Spirit is God. Hitherto we have three 
Gods, and the labor of inferring must be continued, or 
the unity will be destroyed. It must be inferred, that 
the Son is the same Being as the Father ; and again it 
must be inferred, that the Holy Spirit is the same 
Being as the Father, and also the same Being as the 
Son. We are now arrived at what is called a Trinity 
in Unity, and the point has been gained by building up 
inference on inference with very little aid from the 
express words of Scripture." 

I have now, my dear Sir, completed my extensive 
quotations on a certain point ; and you must at least 
acknowledge that a vast number of Trinitarian writers 
have not been able to discern, as plainly as you seem to 
discern, the doctrine of the Trinity, even in the phrase 
used by our Saviour, " Before Abraham was, I am." 



LETTER XXIII. 



ERRONEOUS PREMISES. 

My dear Sir : 

I will next notice what you say in regard to the 
"absurdity " of believing Jesus a created Being, and 
yet ''possessed by delegation of all the powers of the 
Godhead bodily." u Now," you go on to remark, tc if 
one possess all the powers and attributes of God, he is 
God ; for we can only conceive of God by his attri- 
butes, &c." Before, in such an oracular manner, you 
pronounce my faith u absurd," you must convince 
myself and others that your position can be proved, and 
first, let us inquire whether you start upon fair premises. 

I readily grant, that, from your premises, you might 
easily prove an absurdity. But you have first to prove 
that these premises are correct. So far as I am indi- 
vidually concerned, I do by no means admit them ; nor, 
so far as I know, would they be admitted by any Unita- 
rian upon earth. Unitarians believe, as the Scriptures 
teach, that their Master possessed u all the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily ; " not, as you have rendered it, 
" all the powers of the Godhead, &c." And they 
understand this term, u the fulness of the Godhead," 



COLOSSIANS II. 9. 189 

not in an unlimited sense, but with the degree of limi- 
tation the subject seems to demand. They interpret 
one portion of Scripture by another, endeavoring to 
make every part harmonize with the general tenor of 
the w T hole book, just as they would, in fairness and 
candor, ascertain the meaning of the different portions 
of any other book. Therefore, when they read in 
Col. ii. 9, " In him dwelleth all the fulness of the God- 
head bodily," they remember that in Eph. iii. 19, Paul 
prayed that his Christian brethren might be filled with 
all the fulness of God. Here they find the very same 
expression, "all the fulness;" but, as they do not 
suppose that, if Paul's prayer were answered, Christians 
would be equal with God, neither do they believe that 
because Christ was said to possess " all the fulness of 
the Godhead bodily," he must therefore be God him- 
self. It is true, that if Christians were filled with all 
the fulness of God, they would be one with God, as 
Christ and his Father were one ; for Christ also prayed 
that Christians might be one, " even as we," said he, 
u are one;" but in neither case do they make this 
oneness to signify personal identity ; if they did it in 
one case, they would have a right to do it in the other. 
But Paul, to make his meaning still more plain, and as 
if anticipating the mistakes of after ages, seems anxious 
to explain just what he meant by this expression, tc the 
fulness of the Godhead." He tells us in Col. i. 19, 
why and how it was that this fulness dwelt in Christ. 
" It pleased the Father," says he, " that in him should 
all fulness dwell." 

So in regard to the phrase " all power ;" it is to be 



190 ABSURDITY. 

used with the same kind of limitation, also keeping in 
view the declaration of our Saviour that this power was 
given to him. 

If, my dear Sir, I approved of the habit, so common 
among the orthodox, of saying uncourteous things of 
those whose sentiments I may be opposing, I might 
easily retort the charge which you have made. It would 
not be difficult to show that there is something very 
much like an absurdity in asserting that the Being to 
whom all power was given, possessed that power inhe- 
rently, or was, in fact, the very Being by ihhom the 
power was given ; and that, when all the fulness of the 
Godhead dwelt in Christ because it pleased the Father 
that it should be so, he possessed that fulness in his own 
nature, independently of his Father ; or that the Being 
in whom another Being had placed all fulness, was the 
very Being who placed that fulness there. But I for- 
bear ; I would prefer not to follow the example you 
have set me in this matter. Two things only I ask of 
you, and of my friends in general. They are that I 
may be allowed the privilege of free inquiry, and be 
permitted to exercise the right of private judgment ; — 
first principles of Protestantism ; — principles for which 
the fathers of the Reformation were always ready to lay 
down their lives ; — for which they toiled and bled ; — 
which all Protestants ought most constantly and jeal- 
ously to guard. 

I used to boast of living in a free country ; but, as 
long as we have sects who vote all who differ from them 
out of the pale of Christianity, our country is not free. 
That I have some cause for this remark, you certainly 



RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 191 

must acknowledge. You have more than once num- 
bered me with the adherents of u Anti-Christ ; " you 
have called my case " a hopeless one ; ." you have more 
than insinuated, that, unless I return to my former faith, 
and your present one, I shall be " left to perish ; " you 
have classed me among those upon whom, as you assert, 
there is a fearful cc woe " denounced ; you have placed 
me among deists and infidels ; you have announced my 
departure to one flank of " the grand army," by which 
I suppose, you mean the army of " Anti-Christ ; " and 
finally, you have numbered me among those " silly 
women," who are easily " led away captive." Now 
I say again, that as long as there are overwhelming 
sects, and extensive combinations of men, aye, even 
the majority of the Christian world, who, on account 
of some differences of opinion, cast entirely out of the 
pale of Christianity, and deny the name of Christian 
to those who professedly hold to Christ as their head, 
— I am right in asserting that my country is not free ; 
for I know of no tyranny more potent, and no despot- 
tism more galling, than that of public opinion. 

Why do we prize our bodily liberty, but that we may 
exert our bodily powers ? But if we were allowed to 
take only a certain number of steps, and were obliged 
to take those steps only in a certain direction, would 
that be liberty ? Would it be worthy of the name ? 
True, the limbs may be unfettered, we are at liberty to 
use them, but how ? Exactly according to the dicta- 
tion of another. Would that be liberty ? Would that 
be freedom ? Yet this is all the mental freedom you 
are willing to concede to me. Use your reason, you 



192 RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. 

virtually tell me ; take the Bible, read it for } r ouself ; 
but if you come to any other conclusion than that which 
we think to be right, you must of course be wrong. 
You did not search in the right way ; you are without 
the influences of the Holy Spirit ; you can only be right 
when you think just as we do. 

Yes, my friend, you appear quite willing that I should 
read the Scriptures for myself, if I will only read them 
with your spectacles. But if I must understand the 
Bible exactly as you do, why you might as well take 
the Bible from me. Just give me you?* sense of it, 
and I need give myself no further trouble about it.* 
Why, my dear Sir, this is Popery in all its length and 
breadth. f 

* u Would you see," said the "ever memorable " John Hales, 
" how ridiculously we abuse ourselves, when we thus neglect our 
own knowledge, and securely hazard ourselves upon others' skill? 
Give me leave then to show you a perfect pattern of it, and to re- 
port to you what I find in Seneca the philosopher recorded of a 
gentleman in Rome, who being purely ignorant, yet greatly desi- 
rous to seem learned, procured himself many servants, of which 
some he caused to study the poets, some the orators, some the his- 
torians, some the philosophers, and in a strange kind of fancy, all 
their learning he verily thought to be his own, and persuaded 
himself that he knew all that his servants understood ; yea, he 
grew to that height of madness in this kind, that being weak in 
body, and diseased in his feet, he provided himself with wrestlers 
and runners, and proclaimed games and races, and performed them 
by his servants; still applauding himself, as if himself had done 
themt Beloved, you are this man; when you neglect to try the 
spirits, to study the means of salvation yourselves, but content 
yourselves to take them upon trust, &c." 

t See Appendix, V. 

t Senecae Epist. ad Lucil. xxvii. 



SEARCHING THE SCRIPTURES. 193 

But our Master said, " search the Scriptures, for 
they are they which testify of me." And those pri- 
vate Christians were commended who searched the 
Scriptures daily, to see whether those things which 
they were taught were true. How different is this from 
your real meaning when you direct us to the Bible. 
Considering that our religious teachers in these days are 
not inspired men, as the first teachers of Christianity 
were, the ground you take is very strange. You also 
say, search the Scriptures ; but you say at the same 
time, beware of your conclusions ; let me direct your 
inquiries, and control your final judgment. You give 
me leave to search the Scriptures, provided I find there 
just what you do ; and if I cannot find those things, if 
I am not so fortunate as to understand with your under- 
standing, you insist upon it that I have not searched 
aright. Is this freedom of inquiry ? Is this the right 
of private judgment for which you, as a Protestant, 
contend ? Is this the liberty you are so kind as to 
grant me ? If it is, I want it not. If I must arrive 
at your conclusions, why should I take the trouble to 
search for myself ? Why not save myself such an ex- 
penditure of time, such an amount of anxiety and 
fatigue, and such a waste of strength ? You have 
searched the Bible ; you are very sure you are right ; 
if I should come to different conclusions, it would be 
certain I was wrong ; therefore my wisest plan would 
be just to give up the whole business into your hands. 
But before I could be persuaded to adopt your conclu- 
sions, you must, as I have elsewhere said, guaranty that 
I shall not be called to account for my opinions at the 
17 



194 THE BIBLE. 

last great day.* This I know you cannot do, and 
therefore I will make the Bible, understood as well as it 
can be by the reason which God has given me, my 
only standard of faith ; I will have no other. Blessed 
be God for giving us an infallible standard. Praise be 
to his holy name forever ! And shall I cast aside this 
revelation from God himself, and submit to be fettered 
by articles and creeds, the productions of imperfect 
creatures like myself ? No, my dear Sir, God helping 
me, I never will. The Bible — the Bible for me. I 
will bind it to my heart ; it shall be my guide through 
life, and my comfort in death. 

Would you like, if such a thing were possible, to see 
an ct act of uniformity " introduced among the laws of 
your country ? No, no, you shudder at the thought. 
That be far from us, you instantly exclaim. But when 
you attempt to deny me the right of private judgment, 
and assert that I am a follower of Anti-Christ, because 
I have followed the dictates of my understanding and 
conscience, what are you doing but in your heart sub- 
scribing to an act of uniformity none the less to be 
feared and resisted, because it has its strong hold in 
public opinion, and not in civil laws and establishments? 

* It is only when we can forget the hour of death, that we can 
lay aside our sense of responsibility. I have met with a beautiful 
anecdote in illustration of this point. At the time when two 
thousand ministers were ejected in Great Britain for non-confor- 
mity, a Fellow of Emanuel College in Cambridge, speaking to 
another member of the same college, remarked upon the difficulty 
of conforming conscientiously, " but," continued and concluded he, 
" we must live." To which his friend answered in these four 
emphatic words, "But we must die ! " 



UNIFORMITY. 195 

The only unity of faith which we can ever expect to 
see held u in the bond of peace," is a unity of belief 
in that which Christ himself declares to be absolutely 
essential and fundamental ; namely, a belief in him as 
the Messiah, which of course involves a belief in his 
divine authority. M. Sismondi remarks : " Let a man 
be suspicious of that person who would interpose be- 
tween him and his God. Let him suspect the man who 
would teach him what he ought to believe, and who 
dares to affirm, that on a doctrine, which he commu- 
nicates, depends the mercy of the Universal Parent." 

You will not deny that the right of private judgment 
is the great, fundamental principle of Protestantism, the 
principle of the Reformation. But alas ! for frail hu 
man nature ! those who glory in the name of Protes- 
tants — who constantly claim this right for themselves, 
are unwilling to grant it to others. But I, as a Protes- 
tant, and as a responsible being, can never for a moment 
think of giving up this right. My mind is my king- 
dom, shall I yield up the throne to a fellow mortal ? 
Over it I can allow no human being to domineer. It 
belongs to me, and I belong to God. If I have no 
dominion over my own mind, if I have no prerogative 
here, where else have I the semblance of one ? ^nd 
shall I lightly yield this high prerogative ? No, by the 
help of God, who gave me my intellectual faculties — 
my mind — my immortal nature — I will sacredly guard 
the treasure, though, in the struggle, I should lose all 
beside. 

What has a man that he can call his own, if not his 
own thoughts, his own opinions ? Who would care for 



196 MENTAL FREEDOM. 

the wealth of the world without power over his inner 
man ? What would a man be, if he must surrender his 
mind to the custody of others ? If he must think as 
others think, and believe as others believe ? Oh, when 
the soul has once felt its own power, and stirred itself 
up to seek affinity with its God, and plumed its wings 
for a flight above this world into the pure atmosphere 
of Heaven, what power ought to detain it, what power 
can detain it here ? You may chain the mortal body, 
you may torture the quivering limbs, but the soul, the 
soul, who can chain or torture that ? If Jesus, the 
Anointed of God, gives it freedom, if Jesus gives it 
peace, who can chain or torture it ? Unless a man is 
recreant to himself, none can do it. Unless a man sur- 
renders to the keeping of others that priceless jewel, 
his inward being, he is free, he is peaceful, though 
storms rage all around him. 

I have, my dear Sir, but little more to say in reply 
to your communications. They contain many things 
which I could wish had never been said, but I must 
regard them as a part of that discipline which is intend- 
ed to refine and brighten the characters of those who 
are called to suffer and endure. In conclusion, I will 
only mention and point out to you one or two expres- 
sions which have wounded me to the heart. In one of 
your letters you say, " give my love and sympathies 
to your truly (aye, now for the first time truly) afflicted 
parents ; " and in another you remark, that " the very 
Deist will say, she might at least have waited for the 
brief period which intervenes between her father and the 
tomb, before she brought this bitterness to his heart, 



INJURIOUS IMPUTATIONS. 197 

this reproach to his name, — for what ? The mere 
pride of expressing an opinion, which to conceal (?) 
would have injured neither herself nor others. " 

Among the variety of motives which those who cannot 
possibly know anything about the matter have ascribed to 
me, the one just quoted stands pre-eminent. But why 
do you and others lose sight of the plain commands of the 
gospel ? u Judge not, that ye be not judged," is surely as 
binding on Christians now, as it was when it was uttered. 
Now when a man commits a wicked action — steals his 
neighbor's property, sets fire to his neighbor's house, 
or bears false witness against his neighbor — men can- 
not help judging of such actions. They see and know 
that he has done wickedly, that he has broken the laws 
of his country and of God ; but when they attempt to 
pass severe and injurious opinions upon the motives 
which may have led an individual to pursue a certain 
course, which does not interfere with the rights or safety 
of any other man, what are they doing but violating the 
plain injunction of the Apostle, who said, u Judge 
nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who both 
will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and 
will make manifest the counsels of the hearts." Do 
they forget that God will surely visit them for these 
things ? that, as they sow, so shall they reap ? The 
habit of ascribing to our fellow creatures any motive 
rather than giving them credit for good ones, and for 
what may be the true and right ones, is a most injurious 
habit ; and it is alarmingly prevalent. If all men were 
guided by the principles of Unitarianism, which makes 
the laws of love and the rules of equity stand prorni- 
17* 



198 INJURIOUS IMPUTATIONS. 

nently forth, and which, moreover, make men person- 
ally responsible for their every action, word, and 
thought, these things would not exist. I do not pre- 
tend to say that all Unitarians are thoroughly imbued 
with that spirit of love which tl worketh no ill to its 
neighbor," but I do say that this law of love to man as 
well as to God, shines conspicuously and beautifully 
forth from their rational and heart-searching system of 
faith. 

Now, however others may excommunicate and ana- 
thematize me, and my opinions, it is my joy and rejoic- 
ing that I cannot, will not, dare not, follow their exam- 
ple. I would not relinquish the delightful brotherhood 
I feel, with all who in every place acknowledge the Lord 
Jesus Christ as their Lord and Master, for worlds. 
No, not for any consideration which could be named. 
However sternly the majority may cast me out of this 
delightful fraternity, they cannot shut up my Christian 
sympathies, or cause me to deny to them the Christian 
name, merely because we give some portions of the 
Bible a different interpretation. We go to the same 
fountain of truth ; we acknowledge the same Master ; 
we shall, I devoutly and joyfully believe, meet in the 
same Heaven, and enjoy the same blessedness here- 
after. I congratulate myself upon the fact that I can 
stretch out my arms, and embrace in my sympathy and 
love the whole Christian world. 

But it is no insignificant part of the cross which I 
now have to bear, that I am in a great measure exclu- 
ded from the Christian sympathies of my nearest and 
dearest relatives and friends. It is hard to carry about 






CHRISTIAN CHARITY. 199 

with me the continual consciousness that they regard 
me as having placed between myself and them an im- 
passable barrier ; and that, according to their way of 
thinking, there can be between us, on the most momen- 
tous of all subjects, no fellowship nor communion. 
Thus, while my heart is gushing with Christian love 
and sympathy, and longing to mingle with the hearts of 
those I love and venerate, its tide is often rudely checked, 
and turned back again to find a channel in the already 
overflowing heart from whence it came. This is not 
imagination. It is sober, mournful truth. I have been 
told over and over again by my friends, that, on relig- 
ious subjects, there can be no sympathy between us, that 
I have created a wide gulf of separation between my- 
self and them. 

That you, my dear Sir, should be among those who 
feel thus, I deeply lament. But, as I have already 
said, it is my happiness, whatever others may think or 
say, to know that we all acknowledge the same spiritual 
Head, even Jesus Christ, the Messiah. I cherish the 
delightful consciousness that we have one Lord, one 
faith, one baptism ; one God and Father of all, who is 
above all, and through all, and in us all. I would not, 
I repeat it, believe as you profess to believe, that all 
who do not receive the Messiah as the infinite God, 
are in a fatal, a soul ruining error ; I would not believe 
thus, no, not for ten thousand worlds. I am told, in 
God's infallible word, that if we believe that Jesus is 
the Son of God, we shall have eternal life. This you 
believe, and this w T e, Unitarians, also believe.; and if 
your faith and ours on this Son of God, is that sort of 



200 CHRISTIAN SYMPATHY. 

faith which will bring forth cc the fruits of holiness," 
the "end" will be, to you and to us, "everlasting 
life." Thus will I always endeavor to keep the unity 
of the spirit in the bond of pe,ace. This belief — that 
even those who differ from me in opinion may be in the 
way to Heaven — shall ever be my joy and rejoicing, 
and it is a joy no man can take from me. 



LETTER XXIV. 



MENTAL SUFFERING. 

My dear Sir : 

Your supposition, that my mind must be "deeply 
exercised — perhaps harassed and jaded — perhaps dis- 
tracted" — is partly correct and partly incorrect. It 
certainly is, and has been " deeply exercised," and I 
hope will continue to be so to the end of my life, while 
I am striving to " forget the things that are behind, and 
to reach forward to those that are before ;" but I cannot 
say that it is now "harassed" — "jaded" — or "dis- 
tracted." God has given me strength to bear all that 
has come upon me in connection with my change of 
opinions. As regards the change itself, I never was so 
wedded to my own opinions that I could not rejoice to 
resign them when I believed them to be erroneous. I 
have, from my earliest years, cherished with jealous 
care that honesty of mind and purpose, which would 
render me ever ready to acknowledge the right, and 
repudiate the wrong, let the consequences to myself he 
what they might. 

You inquire, " how can a separation from a faith, so 
cherished and fully confided in from infancy, be made 



202 AN EXTRACT. 

without those deep pangs which nearly resemhle the 
sundering of the heartstrings ? I will say nothing," 
you remark, " of associations, of relatives, or of friends. 
In a step so momentous, I presume you have considered, 
mainly, the one — the paramount question — what is 
truth ? What is duty ? " 

In reply to your inquiry, I answer, that it is because 
I have not separated myself from the faith I have u con- 
fided in, and cherished from infancy," that I have felt 
no ct pangs " like " the sundering of the heartstrings." 
It is because I feel that I still retain all that was valuable 
about that faith, and have only cast off what, in my 
view, clouded my understanding, and fettered my spirit, 
that I have no feeling in regard to my present position 
— I mean, so far as concerns myself — save that of 
deep thankfulness and sacred joy. What I have suffer- 
ed in being the innocent and unwilling instrument of 
pain and anguish to those whom I love better than life, 
the omniscient Father of us all can only know. 

You proceed to say, " my object in addressing you 
is not to argue the question, whether our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ is truly God as well as man, or 
not. I am not so vain as to suppose that anything I 
can say would produce a convincing effect upon your 
mind, after the arguments of your pious parents had 
been in vain exhausted. But I did hope, that a word 
might be dropped, which, by the grace of God, might 
arrest your attention, and lead you to pause, ere you 
made that fearful leap, which in its consequences must 
be grievous, if not ruinous." 

It appears to me, my dear Sir, that, among most of 



A REPLY. 203 

those who are styled Orthodox, there is a most singular 
mixture of meek humility and overbearing pride. It 
would seem by the paragraph last quoted, that you have 
a very humble opinion of your own powers ; and yet 
you pronounce yourself to be right, and declare me to 
be wrong, with the most oracular air. You do not 
imagine, you say, that anything you could offer would 
produce a convincing effect upon my mind. Then one 
of three things must be true ; either you can give no 
satisfactory reasons for your belief — or I cannot com- 
prehend them — or I am determined not to receive 
them, whether they be true or false. Now, if I cannot 
comprehend them, of course I cannot be convinced by 
them ; and you will hardly be prepared to aver, either 
that you have no satisfactory or convincing reasons for 
your faith, or that I am determined not to be influenced 
by evidence. But, if you have good and satisfying 
reasons to offer, and you think I am capable of appre- 
ciating them, and you believe that I am an honest and 
sincere inquirer after truth, I cannot imagine why you 
should suppose that nothing you can say would produce 
tc a convincing effect upon my mind." 

In regard to that mysterious ''word" which you 
hoped might be u dropped," and which, by the grace 
of God, might arrest my attention, you were indulging 
a vain expectation. I think we abuse the grace of God 
when we expect from it such effects as these ; — effects 
without a cause. If a word is dropped which causes 
me to ponder, and leads to desirable results, it is the 
grace of God which sent me that w r ord, but it is made 
effectual because I ponder upon it, and thus it produces 



204 



AN EXTRACT. 



its effect in a natural way. But, remember, if you 
drop any " word " from which you can hope for good 
results, it must be a reasonable word, addressed as if to 
a reasonable being. I believe that the grace of God 
comes to us as to reasonable creatures, and not in any 
mysterious way — leading us to Heaven without our 
knowledge or consent. 

Your letter proceeds, " I would not grieve nor offend 
you by the utterance of a single unkind word ; but I 
have no hesitation in pronouncing Unitarianism — much 
as I respect many of the learned divines and statesmen 
who have embraced that faith — to be a damnable her- 
esy — an unscriptural dogma — an utter rejection of 
the Saviour, in all the affairs and relations in which he 
can be properly termed a Saviour." Soft and kind 
words these are, truly ! I acquit you, my dear Sir, 
of any intention to wound my feelings, but when you 
use such language concerning the faith which I have 
embraced, from a sober conviction of its agreement 
with the revealed word of God, I cannot think you have 
shown that mildness which is so highly recommended 
by our divine Master, or that " moderation " which St. 
Paul advises us to show to " all men." What useful 
purpose do such denunciations serve ? They can but 
frighten the weak and credulous, but have no effect 
upon a mind that is searching for truth, and asks a rea- 
son for every opinion. You might easily have given me 
your reasons for believing Unitarianism to be so perni- 
cious and dangerous a system, without calling it by such 
hard names ; and such a course w r ould have a far greater 
effect upon a reasonable mind than the one you have 
pursued. 



DENUNCIATION UNWISE. 205 

It is a striking proof to many persons of the untena- 
bleness and unreasonableness of orthodox theology, 
that its advocates so generally resort to denunciation 
and invective. It would be far better, my dear Sir, for 
you and your cause if you could persuade yourself and 
others to exhibit more of the calmness and courtesy 
which are usually the accompaniments of conscious 
strength and rectitude. When I hear Unitarian Chris- 
tianity thus furiously attacked, I am inclined to apply to 
it the remark made by M. Cheneviere in regard to the 
Genevan churches. u Geneva," says he, lt is attacked 
because it is in advance of the other churches in the 
nineteenth century, as it was in the sixteenth ; the time 
will come, when it will receive as many commendations 
and blessings for its present conduct, as of late it has 
experienced insults." This is my candid opinion and 
belief in regard to Unitarianism in general. 

A most beautiful exhibition and definition of Chris- 
tian charity was given by Frederic Augustus, the late 
Duke of Sussex, and brother to George the Fourth, in a 
letter to the venerable Dr. Robbins, Librarian of the 
Historical Society's Library at Hartford, on the occa- 
sion of his presenting him with a copy of the first edi- 
tion of the Bishop's Bible, printed in London in 1568. 
Speaking of the Bible, he says : " That holy book is 
the one I consult most. Although I believe I read it 
differently from most people, I do so with great humil- 
ity, but with equal circumspection, not taking the dictum 
of any man, and endeavoring to make out the real 
meaning and intention of the inspired writer, which I 
fear is not so particularly attended to as should be the 
18 



206 THE DUKE OF SUSSEX. 

case ; but / do this in charily with all men, respecting 
the opinions and prejudices of every one ; provided he 
be honest, but adhering steadily to my own, without 
forcing them upon others ; and this I believe to be the 
true Christian principle, charity to all." Oh di- 
vine and beautiful charity, called by St. Paul the great- 
est of the Christian virtues, I rejoice to believe that 
thou hast not quite departed from our world ! 

Now I admire and love Unitarianism because one of 
its most distinguishing features is this same heaven-born 
Charity. In my reading of Unitarian works, and in 
my personal intercourse with Unitarians, I always 
find them ready and willing to give credit to others for 
the same virtues of sincerity and conscientiousness 
which they assume for themselves, and to allow to 
others the same rights and privileges which they claim 
for themselves.* This willingness, I am sorry to con- 
fess, I do not find among the Orthodox, though to this 
general remark I would make some delightful and hon- 

* Archbishop Tillotson has rendered this testimony to the gen- 
tle spirit maintained, in controversy, by Unitarians. " To do 
right," he says, "to the writers on that side, I must own, that 
generally they are a pattern of the fair way of disputing, and of 
debating matters of religion without heat and unseemly reflec- 
tions on their adversaries They generally argue mat- 
ters with that temper and gravity, and with that freedom from 
passion and transport, which becomes a serious and weighty argu- 
ment, and, for the most part, they reason closely and clearly, with 
extraordinary guard and caution, with great dexterity and decency, 
and yet with smartness and subtilty enough ; with a very gentle 
heat, and few hard words — virtues to be praised wherever they 
are found, yea, even in an enemy, and very worthy our imita- 
tion." — Archbishop Tillotson : Works, as published by himself, 
Serm. xliv. p. 537. 



UNITARIANS LOVE CHARITY. 207 

orable exceptions. But, with all their charity, Unita- 
rians are by no means indifferent to the truth. Far 
from it. It is because they prize the truth so highly 
that they are not willing to take it second-handed, but 
insist upon receiving it only as it came from God him- 
self, that they are thus abused. It is because they 
will not subscribe to the words of man, that those who 
do subscribe to them thus denounce and unchurch them. 
They think that it is of the utmost consequence what a 
man believes, for they are obliged to mourn over the 
effects produced by what they deem erroneous views. 
But while they assert, and maintain, and defend, what 
they believe to be truth, they do not denounce and 
frown upon those who hold different views. They think 
them in great error, and they tell them so ; but they do 
not feel themselves called upon to dictate to others as 
to what they shall or shall not believe. 

After all, when you call Unitarianism u a damnable 
heresy — an unscriptural dogma — an utter rejection of 
the Saviour," — it amounts to no more than an individ- 
ual opinion ; and all that I have to say is, that my opin- 
ion is a very different one. But when you shall attempt, 
in the calmness of Christian love, to prove your asser- 
tions, I will listen to you with the greatest pleasure, and 
give to your arguments the best consideration of which 
I am capable. You may oppose my opinions as much 
as you please, if you will only do it in the right way. 
Argue me out of them if you can ; if they are erro- 
neous, the sooner I am convinced of it, the better ; but 
personal reproach or harsh invective against a man or 
his opinions, will do nobody any good. There is a vast 



203 RELIGIOUS CONTROVERSY. 

deal of religious intolerance in the Protestant world, and 
though, upon the whole, true Christian light and liberty 
are making progress, there are some sects, which, 
alarmed for their ecclesiastical power, are drawing 
tighter and tighter the cords which bind them together, 
to the exclusion of all others. We all have a stake in 
this great matter ; and if God will give me strength, I 
hope to do my part in exposing and resisting intolerance 
in all its forms and under all its disguises. 

Religious controversy is always useful when it is con- 
ducted in a proper spirit ; but, alas ! how seldom do we 
find this the case ! The Apostle Paul is a safe model for 
every man. He was constantly engaged in controversy ; 
he contended u earnestly " for the faith, but his weap- 
ons were those of sound argument and affectionate per- 
suasion, and not those of invective and reproach. And 
granting that St. Paul sometimes used strong expres- 
sions, you must remember that he was an inspired man, 
and that you are not ; and you must likewise remember 
that expressions in common use at that period are not 
in common use now, and ought not to be applied as our 
language to our contemporaries. 

But I am ready to admit that anything is better than 
a dead calm. Give us a storm rather than a calm ; 
there is more danger, but there is generally some pro- 
gress. A calm lulls us to sleep ; while a storm awakens 
us, quickens us, calls forth our energies, and gives us 
the teachings of experience. There was no controversy, 
worthy the name of controversy, in the dark ages ; and 
who would wish again to see such times as those ? 
Who would wish that gloomy night — that blackness of 
darkness — to return ? 



AN EXTRACT. 209 

But I proceed to notice another portion of your 
letter ; and, to do this, I must introduce topics which 
have been more than once noticed before. You say : 
41 Rob Him (that is, Christ) of his divinity, — He who 
' thought it not robbery to be equal with God,' and 
what, oh what in mercy's name, in reason's too, be- 
comes of atonement, of expiation, of mediation, of his 
gracious, invisible presence amid all the assemblies of 
his worshippers on earth, and the efficacy of his inter- 
cession in Heaven ? You may think it harsh and 
uncharitable, as well as bold, thus unqualifiedly to make 
so sweeping an assertion. But I am confident — I 
hope with no vain confidence — upon this subject. My 
own salvation depends upon the fact, that Jesus Christ 
is omnipotent to save — omnipotent in his own undele- 
gated, underived merits, to save to the uttermost. I 
have, I trust, committed the keeping of my soul to his 
hands, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that 
which I have delivered to him." 

I shall not have a great deal to say in reply to this 
quotation. The ideas are so exactly those which were 
contained in other letters, that I have become somewhat 
wearied with their repetition. I am a little surprised 
that you should bring forward the clause " thought it not 
robbery, &c." when, as a proof text for the divinity of 
Christ, it has been given up by so many Trinitarians. 
The following remarks from u Emlyn's Humble In- 
quiry," may never have met your eyes. u As to that 
place," he says, " which is corruptly rendered in our 
translation, c he thought it no robbery to be equal with 
God,' Phil. ii. 6, it is confessed by our adversaries 

18* 



210 phil. ii. 6. 

themselves, that it should be read thus, viz. that he did 
riot assume, or arrogate, or snatch at an equality with 
God, or covet to appear in the likeness of God ; the 
words are never known to be used in any other sense, 
as is shown by Dr. Tillotson in his Discourses against 
the Socinians ; also by Dr. Whitby in his exposition 
on that place ; and others. So that this rather denies 
than asserts Christ's equality to God, though he was in 
the form of God, as that notes the outward resemblance 
of him in his mighty power and works, which is the 
constant meaning of the word form in the New Testa- 
ment." 

Pitkin, in his reply to Baker, after proving that the 
text, even as it now stands in our common version, is 
entirely in accordance with Unitarian views, and utterly 
at war with those of Mr. Baker, goes on to say, u But 
it seems, that he (Mr. Baker) was fully aware that 
this passage is condemned as a mistranslation. He 
says, c I am aware that those who reject our doctrine 
give another rendering to this passage, and indeed to 
every passage which we have quoted, or shall yet quote, 
numerous as they are ! Now, is it not marvellous that 
so many passages have been wrongly translated ? ' But 
why," continues Mr. Pitkin, "does he say that those 
who reject our doctrine give another rendering to this 
passage ? Dr. Adam Clarke renders it thus : ' Who 
being in the form of God, did not think it a matter to be 
earnestly desired to appear equal with God, but made 
himself of no reputation, &c.' Tillotson, a distinguish- 
ed Archbishop of the Episcopal Church, renders it, 
* Did not arrogate to himself to be equal with God.' 



ATONEMENT. 211 

The celebrated Whiston translates it thus : c Who being 
in the form of God, did not think this likeness to God 
a thing to be eagerly retained, but humbled himself, &c.' 
Another rendering is, c did not think of the robbery, the 
being equal to God.' " 

Burnap says, in the preface to his excellent Exposi- 
tory Lectures : u So much is the Trinity a matter of 
inference, even from them, (alluding to the passages 
brought in its support,) that it is said, and I believe 
justly, that there is not one of them, which has not been 
given up, as proving nothing to the point, by some one 
of the ablest defenders of the doctrine." # 

But I proceed to another point. If by robbing Christ, 
as you term it, of his essential divinity, we blotted God 
entirely out of the universe, there would be good and 
great reason for your pathetic interrogation, " oh what 
in mercy's name, in reason's too, becomes of atonement, 
of expiation, of mediation, and of his gracious, invisible 
presence amid all the assemblies of his worshippers on 
earth, and the efficacy of his intercession in Heaven ? " 
The atonement in which I believe, does not require an 
infinite sacrifice — an Almighty victim — the death of 
a God I I am aware that I am using contradictory 
terms, but I cannot avoid it under the circumstances. 
To meet Trinitarians on their own ground, contradictory 
propositions are unavoidable. If God saw fit to pro- 
vide the means of atonement, or reconciliation, I do not 
see why he could not choose just what instrument he 



* For proof of this, see a remarkable work called Concessions of 
Trinitarians. 



212 MEDIATION. 

pleased. Its efficacy would be abundantly guaranteed 
from the fact that it was provided by our Almighty 
Father. And even on the supposition that Christ died 
as an "expiation" or substitute, which, of course, I 
do not admit, I cannot see any reason why the substi- 
stute might not be just what the Supreme Ruler chose 
to provide. The old idea that because sin is an infinite 
evil, as it is alleged to be by some, it requires an infinite 
atonement, is, I believe, nearly exploded. I now and 
then hear it advanced, by those who are somewhat be- 
hind the times, but I have likewise heard it pronounced 
by Trinitarian divines, a fallacious argument. Neither 
sin, nor the atonement for sin, can be infinite, for sin is 
committed by finite beings, and it is not pretended by 
those who hold the doctrine of the two natures in Christ, 
that the infinite part of Christ's nature died upon the 
cross. 

In regard to the necessity of an infinite mediator, 
Emlyn says : " I judge, that to assert Jesus Christ to 
be the Supreme God, subverts the Gospel doctrine of 
his mediation ; for if I must have one, who is Supreme 
God and man, for my mediator with God, then, when 
I address Jesus Christ as the Supreme God, where is 
the God-man that must be my mediator with him ? To 
say he mediates with himself, is the same as to say that 
I must go to him without a mediator ; and turns the 
whole business of mediation into a metaphor, contrary 
to the common sense of things, as well as against the 
Scripture." 

Now, I ask, is he mediator in his divine or in his 
human nature ? If in his human, he cannot, according 



CHRIST EVER PRESENT. 213 

to your ideas, know what all God's creatures want and 
pray for. If he mediates in his divine nature, or in 
both united, then, as Emlyn says, he mediates with 
himself. But St. Paul says, 1 Tim. ii. 5, " There is 
but one God, and one mediator between God and men, 
the man Christ Jesus." £C Never let us fear," says 
Emlyn, u but St. Paul knew how to describe the 
mediator between God and men, without leaving out 
the better half of him, or the principal nature. Our 
mediator, according to him, was only called a c man ; ' 
who also is by office a God, or ruler over all, made so 
by him who puts all things under him." 

In regard to your remark concerning c< his gracious, 
invisible presence amid all the assemblies of his wor- 
shippers on earth," I believe in it as firmly 3s you do, 
though in a different sense. I believe that he is with 
them by his recorded words, by the Spirit of his Gos- 
pel, by the influence of that religion which he came to 
establish. Emlyn shows that Baxter, and many others 
reputed orthodox, believed that an inherently divine 
nature was not necessary to the possession of such 
knowledge of earthly affairs as Christ has ascribed to 
himself. " The reverend Mr. Baxter," he says, " in 
his notes on Eph. iv. 16, plainly intimates, that he con- 
ceives an angel might be made capable of ruling the 
Universal Church on earth by legislation, judgment, and 
execution ; for having said this task was impossible to 
any power but divine, he corrects himself by adding, 
or angelical at least ; and sure the man Christ's ability 
is far superior to angels ; besides that, he has them 
ministering to him, and giving him notice of matters, if 



214 Christ's knowledge. 

there be any occasion ; for he has seven principal 
spirits, who are the ' eyes of the Lamb sent forth through 
all the earth,' as the same writer interprets Rev. v. 6." 

" So," continues Emlyn, a the author of the little 
book, called, The Future State, the same who wrote 
The Good Samaritan, a worthy divine of the Church 
of England, says many very rational things concerning 
the large extent of Christ's human knowledge ; that 
probably c he can as easily inspect the whole globe of 
this earth, and the heavens that compass it, as we can 
view a globe of an inch diameter ! ' p. 46, 47. c That 
he intercedes as man, and can he intercede in a case he 
knows not ? ' So again, p. 150. The like says Lim- 
borch in his Theol. Christ, lib. 5, c. 18." 

He next adds the testimony of Dr. Thomas Good- 
win, u where he says, c the human understanding of 
Christ takes in all occurrences which concern his 
Church.' And that, as he said, c All power in heaven 
and earth is given me of my Father,' so might he say, 
1 All knowledge in heaven and earth is given me,' — 
that c his beams pierce into every corner' — that c he 
knows the sore of every heart.' And he concludes 
with these remarkable words, c that as a looking glass 
wrought in the form of a globe, represents the images 
of all that is in the room, so the enlarged human under- 
standing of Christ takes in all things in heaven and earth 
at once.' It seems," says Mr. Emlyn, u these men 
did not take it to be the peculiar perfection of the 
divine nature to know the hearts, so as that no creature 
could partake of it by divine assistance and revelation." 
I believe these are the sentiments of men whose ortho- 
doxy was never called in question. 



OMNIPRESENCE. 215 

There are a great many ways in which this promise 
we have been considering, and that other promise, u Lo, 
I am with you always," can be fulfilled, without sup- 
posing Christ to be an omnipresent being. If we abide 
in him, and his words abide in us, is he not with us al- 
ways 9 Do we not say of the good man who hath left 
the legacy of his pure spirit behind him, u He being 
dead, yet speaketh ? " Is not, in a sense, the spirit of 
Washington with us still ? And is it not our earnest 
hope and prayer that his spirit may burn and glow in 
the hearts of his countrymen, even to the end of the 
world ? If then Christ " is the true vine, and we are 
the branches" — if, as the branch cannot bear fruit of 
itself, except it abide in the vine, so no more can we, 
except we abide in Christ, is he not always with those 
thus united to him 9 Are not his commands always 
with us ? And here let me pause, and entreat you to 
ponder with me those significant words, in his last ad- 
dress to his disciples before his crucifixion, " This is 
my commandment, that ye love one another." 

But further, are not Christ's promises always with 
us ? Is not his wonderful example always before us ? 
Who is the Christian's companion but him whom he has 
chosen as his guide to Heaven ? Is he not " the good 
Shepherd," and do not his sheep hear his voice, and 
follow him as they will not follow a stranger ? 

But I pass on to another topic. I certainly do, as 
you seem to apprehend I may, u think it harsh and un- 
charitable, as well as bold," to make use of the epi- 
thets with which you have denounced Unitarianism ; 
viz. " a damnable heresy — an unscriptural dogma — 



216 HARSH EPITHETS. 

an utter rejection of the Saviour." These are cer- 
tainly very hard names. I not only think them harsh 
and uncharitable, but I think still further, that by such 
a course you seriously injure yourself, and the cause 
you are endeavoring to advocate. To use the language 
of a writer in the Christian Examiner for March and 
April, 1826, "It is not the way to conciliate, and in- 
crease converts ; but it drives some away in disgust 
and sorrow, and it feeds the worst passions of those 
who remain behind. How childish, moreover," says 
he, " to be calling names, and dooming this one and 
that one to hell ! Does it not at least reveal a woful 
poverty of argument ? Unitarian churches have been 
filled rather than emptied by these bitter denunciations 
from abroad ; for, after all, men will venture to such 
places, with the curiosity that leads youth to creep to 
the brink of precipices, to see what is there. A glori- 
ous prospect, on a safe footing, often rewards both kinds 
of adventurers." 

No, Sir, you are not aware how much you lose by an 
indulgence in such expressions as those you have unhes- 
itatingly used. As for me, I will always endeavor to 
speak what I regard to be " the truth, in love ; " and 
it shall be my aim, as it is now my desire and my in- 
tention, to follow the direction of the Apostle Peter, 
" Be ready always to give an answer to every one that 
asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with 
meekness and fear." * And I call upon all those who 

* Paul, too, gives excellent advice on the subject. In his last 
letter to Timothy, after speaking of those questions which "gen- 
der strifes," he says, rt And the servant of the Lord must not 



HARSH EPITHETS. 217 

love candor and fair dealing to examine and decide for 
themselves whether the ground taken by the orthodox, 
against Unitarians and Unitarianism, is, or is not, un- 
fair and incorrect ; and whether the anathemas which 
are so lavishly thundered against them, are, or are not, 
deserved. 

But I am tired of this style of controversy, and will 
therefore bring this long letter to a close by congratula- 
ting you upon the " confidence " you feel in regard to 
your salvation, and by earnestly expressing the hope 
that it may indeed be " no vain confidence." 

strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meek- 
ness instructing those that oppose themselves, if God peradven- 
ture will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." 
Now, even if you class me with those who " oppose themselves," 
though verily I think I am more opposed than opposing, for I only 
ask to judge for myself, and have no desire to thrust my opinions 
upon any body, — you must perceive that you have not, in reproving 
me, followed St. Paul's most excellent advice. 



19 



LETTER XXV. 



AN EXTRACT. 



My dear Sir : 

What you say in regard to the danger and folly of 
examining into other systems of faith than those which 
we have already embraced, though, in my view, a sin- 
gular and unsound opinion, is, I am well aware, by no 
means an uncommon one. You will find it in almost 
every orthodox controversial ivork that has ever been 
written. But allow me to quote from your letter a 
sentence or two. The first remark I shall notice is 
this: "Educated as you have been from early child- 
hood in the doctrine of the Trinity, you may have been 
led to suppose that your belief therein has been wholly 
owing to the accident of your birth and education, and 
the bias given to your youthful mind ; and, impressed 
with this thought, you may have considered it right and 
proper to examine into all the arguments urged in favor 
of an opposite belief." I will interrupt the quotation 
here, merely to say, that I examined into no arguments 
in favor of an opposite belief, till I had examined the 
Bible. I endeavored to read the New Testament as 
if I had never seen it before, and it was there I found 



AN EXTRACT. 219 

the arguments that established me in my present belief ; 
it was from thence that I was obliged to avow myself 
a Unitarian. But to proceed : cc This course," you 
observe, u however seemingly wise, is not only fraught 
with the greatest danger, but it is really characteristic 
of the deepest folly. It is, I believe, the most subtle 
of all Satan's schemes to mislead the sincere inquirer 
after truth. Nay, he sometimes does proceed a step 
further, and is willing to allow the inquirer to pray for 
Divine Guidance, and to hold the Bible in one hand if 
he can only plant heresy in the other. There is no 
way to see the truth but in the light of the truth ; and 
when the truth is once established, no counter arguments 
can have any form or validity. This is a fundamental 
principle in all reasoning, else nothing can be established 
or relied on. Now if I can prove the Divinity of Jesus 
Christ from the Scriptures, I will hail it as a truth, em- 
brace and rely upon it as a truth, nor care a straw for 
all the arguments that can be raised in opposition, 
knowing, that two opposite doctrines cannot be substan- 
tiated from the same premises." 

I grant, my dear Sir, the correctness of one of your 
remarks, which appears to me to be a self-evident prop- 
osition. The remark to which I allude is this, " There 
is no way to see the truth but in the light of the truth." 
But the conclusions to which you come from such cor- 
rect premises are by no means, it appears to me, correct 
or legitimate ones. The reason is very obvious. Con- 
clusions depend, in a measure, upon the meaning and 
the sense which we give to the terms of our starting 
proposition. Now, by the expression, " the light of 



220 " THE LIGHT OF THE TRUTH." 

the truth," I should understand that light which shines 
from the whole Bible. I regard the Bible as a harmo- 
nious whole, and, as such, it is a light for our feet, and 
a lamp to our paths. In the light which shines from 
the Bible — as from one undivided source, as from a 
central sun — I expect to discover truth. But by the 
same expression u the light of the truth," you seem to 
indicate the light of some one truth, and that a truth 
acknowledged not to be explicitly stated in direct terms 
anywhere in the Bible — in terms, I mean, such as 
these, Jesus Christ is the infinite God. The truth to 
which you allude is only inferential. To this inferred, 
obscurely stated truth, taken alone, you would make 
everything else bend. But this method, I should im- 
agine, will prove too much ever to make it a favorite 
one with you. Do you not see, that, in this way, you 
can most effectually overturn your own faith in the 
Trinity ? Take the certainly revealed — explicitly 
stated — and firmly established truth that "Jehovah is 
one " — and the light of such a truth as this is a very 
different one from that of the inferred truth to which 
you have alluded, as different as the light of the sun is 
from that of a feeble, flickering taper ; take, I say, 
the truth that cc Jehovah is one," and how can you ever 
consistently prove, according to your own showing, 
that he is three 9 Take also the certain truth that 
Jesus Christ was a finite man, capable of suffering, and 
how can you prove, from your premises, that he is the 
infinite God ? In fact, you can prove, or disprove any- 
thing from any book, by following, in all its parts, the 
method you propose. Therefore, though we both 



AN EXTRACT. 221 

agree to the proposition that " there is no way to 
see the truth but in the light of the truth," we give the 
terms of the proposition an entirely different meaning ; 
and there can be no argument between two or more 
persons till they agree in their premises ; nor can they 
be said to agree till they understand in the same sense 
the terms of those premises. 

You next proceed, my dear Sir, to question me thus : 
" And why need you, Madam, May again the founda- 
tion of your faith ? ' Have you been charmed by the 
seductive voice of a vain philosophy ? Why then are 
you wavering and unestablished in the faith c as you have* 
been taught ? ' " These interrogations do not appear 
to me to require any specific answer, since they are 
merely founded on your individual sentiments in regard 
to matters about which there is a vast difference of opin- 
ion. I will therefore pass on. 

You now call my attention to Colossians, 2d chapter, 
and 8th verse, u Beware lest any man spoil you through 
philosophy and vain deceit," &c, and you say, "Now 
it is remarkable that the Apostle, in this and the pre- 
ceding chapter, had been teaching the Doctrine of the 
Divinity of Jesus Christ — that he is God over all — 
the Creator of the Universe ; — and that by him all 
things consist." 

I am far from admitting that the first and second 
chapters of the Epistle to the Colossians teach any- 
thing like the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus Christ, 
in the Trinitarian sense. Let us pause for a while, and 
examine them together. In the second and third verses 
God and Christ are spoken of as distinct beings. So 
19* 



222 COLOSSIANS CHAP. I. AND II. 

they are in the 12th and 13th verses, where the Father 
is said to have translated believers into the kingdom of 
his dear Son. In the 15th verse this Son is declared 
to be the image of God," and u the firstborn of every 
creature." Now the u image" of anything cannot be 
the thing itself, and a u creature " cannot be the Su- 
preme Creator. In the two succeeding verses, the 16th 
and 17th, I presume you find your chief and irresistible 
argument. Let us therefore give them a special, and 
earnest, and candid examination. 

But first let me make a simple remark. It should 
be borne in mind that the Apostle was writing this Epis- 
tle to the Colossians, to assure them of the fact that 
they were under a new dispensation introduced by 
Christ, who had full power and authority for this end. 
He was opposing, on the one hand, the Judaizing 
teachers, who were endeavoring to impose upon the 
Christian Church the ritual law ; — and, on the other 
hand, the philosophizing converts from heathenism, who 
were aiming to incorporate with the new religion the 
subtleties of their old philosophy. Paul is writing to 
remind them of the fact that the simple religion intro- 
duced by Jesus Christ was the true faith — that which 
they had been taught — and in which they were to con- 
tinue. Now let us examine the 16th and 17th verses, 
with this idea — namely, that he was writing about 
Christ's new dispensation — strongly impressed upon 
our minds. 

You will observe that he does not say that by him 
were heaven and earth created, but only " all things 
which are in heaven and in earth." Now, if the ex- 



CREATION BY CHRIST A SPIRITUAL ONE. 223 

pression "all things" can be proved to refer to the 
new spiritual creation Christ came to effect, your argu- 
ment, which makes it prove his divinity only on the 
supposition that it refers to the natural creation, falls 
entirely to the ground. 

The effects produced by the Gospel, the new and 
radically different state of things which had followed 
and were still to follow its introduction — are very 
often spoken of under the figure of a creation. Turn 
to Ephesians ii. 10, and you will find that believers are 
spoken of as created in or through Christ Jesus, unto 
good works. In remarking upon this verse, Priestley 
says, <c We see here in what sense Paul sometimes 
uses the term creation ; viz. as denoting the renovation 
of the world by the Gospel ; and when we elsewhere 
in the Epistles read of the creation of all things by Jesus 
Christ, the meaning is defined and explained by such 
passages as these." 

Again, see Eph. i. 10, Ci That in the dispensation of 
the fulness of times he might gather together in one 
all things in Christy which are in Heaven, and which 
are on earth." Here we have the very same expres- 
sion u all things," certainly applied to spiritual existence 
alone. # 

* Since writing the above, I have met with some remarks of 
Professor Norton upon the passage we are considering; perhaps 
they will interest you, and serve to strengthen my position. " In 
this passage," he says, " there are some expressions which require 
explanation. God, says St. Paul, ' has transferred us from the em- 
pire of darkness into the kingdom of his beloved Son.' To this 
metaphor much of the following language corresponds. It was 
this kingdom which had been newly created, that is, had been 



224 THE TERM " ALL THINGS." 

The Apostle then goes on to specify what he meant 
by the term u all things." " Whether," says he, " they 
be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; " 
these expressions seem plainly to show that he does not 
refer to the material creation. Turn to Eph. i. 21, 
and you will observe that these expressions u principali- 
ties and powers," &c, refer to different degrees of 
spiritual existence. Some understand these titles to 
have relation to the " various orders of angelic beings," 
and suppose this text asserts " Christ's dominion over 

newly formed : for it is thus that the word rendered created is to 
be understood. We find it, and its correlatives, repeatedly used 
in a similar sense by St. Paul, namely, to denote the moral reno- 
vation of men by Christianity. Thus he says : — 

• If any man be in Christ, he is a new creature. The old things 
have passed away, behold, all things have become new. .' 2 Cor. v. 17. 

' For in Christ Jesus neither is circumcision anything, nor un- 
circumcision, but a new creature.' Gal. vi. 15. 

' For we are God's workmanship, created through Christ Jesus 
unto good works.' Ephes. ii. 10. 

' Put on the new man, who is created in the likeness of God, 
with the righteousness and holiness of the true faith.' Ephes. iv 
24. 

The language from the Epistle to the Colossians, in which 
Christ is said to have created all things, is to be explained in a 
corresponding manner. He created all things in the new dispcn- 
tion, in the kingdom of Heaven. It has been understood as de- 
claring, that the natural creation was the work of Christ. But it 
is obvious at first sight, that the words used are not such as prop- 
erly designate the objects of the natural world; and not such, 
therefore, as we should expect to be employed, if these were in- 
tended. In speaking of the natural creation, the same Apostle 
refers it to God in different terms — to ' the living God, who made 
Heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them.' 
Acts, xiv. 15." 



THE SPIRITUAL CREATION. 225 

the angelic world." Schleusner thinks that they refer to 
human magistrates. Others think that they " most aptly 
denote the several ranks of dignity and authority in the 
Church, viz., priests, prophets, apostles, &c, over all 
of whom Jesus is elevated, as the head of this new dis- 
pensation." Imp. V. Priestley says that this verse is 
explained by the next one, where Christ is said to be 
" head over all things to the Church." 

Norton, in commenting on Col. i. 16, says : cc But 
what is meant by the Apostle when he speaks of Christ 
as creating things heavenly and unseen, thrones, princi- 
palities, governments, and powers ? I answer, that 
Christ is here spoken of by him as the founder and 
monarch of the Kingdom of Heaven ; and that this 
kingdom is conceived of, not as confined to earth, but 
as extending to the blessed in Heaven, to those who 
have entered, or may enter, on their reward. Christ 
being represented under the figure of a king, and his 
followers being those who constituted the subjects of his 
kingdom, their highest honors and rewards are spoken 
of, in figurative language, as thrones, principalities, 
governments, and powers. He himself said to his 
Apostles, c In the regeneration,' that is, in the new cre- 
ation, for the terms are equivalent — ' In the regenera- 
tion, when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of 
his glory, ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the 
twelve tribes of Israel.' But the Kingdom of Heaven, 
including the seen as well as the unseen, the earthly as 
well as the heavenly, the terms in question are to be 
understood, not merely as referring to the rewards of the 
blessed in Heaven, but as denoting likewise the highest 



226 THE SPIRITUAL CREATION. 

offices and dignities of this kingdom on earth ; the 
offices of those who were ministers of Christ, its king, 
his apostles and teachers. The purpose of St. Paul is 
to declare, that Christ is the former and master of the 
whole Church on earth and in Heaven ; of the whole 
community of the holy ; that he is the author of all 
their blessings ; that all authority among them is from 
him ; that all are ruled by his laws ; that the whole 
kingdom on earth and in heaven exists through him, 
and, figuratively speaking, t for him,' as its monarch." 
Now, my dear Sir, does it not seem certain that the 
creation spoken of in the verses we have been consider- 
ing, is entirely a spiritual creation, and not the natural 
one ; and, if not, those verses do not support your 
argument. 

But, further, let this creation have been either a natu- 
ral or a spiritual one, we see that in Ephesians iii. 9, it 
is ascribed to God, through Christ. Paul there speaks 
of " the fellowship of the mystery, which from the 
beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who crea- 
ted all things by Jesus Christ, to the intent that now 
unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places 
might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of 
God." Pitkin says, that, " In regard to those passages 
which represent Christ as being engaged in the works of 
Creation and Preservation, it is the opinion of many 
distinguished Theologians that they refer to the new 
Spiritual Creation which was to be formed and per- 
petuated through the influences of the religion which he 
established ; and not to the formation and upholding the 
world of matter. They contend, that ' by him were all 



THE CREATION BY CHRIST. 227 

things created,' and ' by him all things consist,' which 
relate to his Mediatorial Kingdom merely, he being 
' Head over all things to the Church. 9 

" But," says he, w whether they are correct or not 
in these opinions, does not in the least affect the deci- 
sion of the question now before us. It matters not 
whether our Lord is engaged in the works of creating 
and upholding the material, or merely the moral world. 
The only point which in this connexion demands our 
attention, is, does he create and uphold as the Eternal 
God, or only as a qualified instrument of Divine Power? 
In reference to this, hear his own express declarations : 
4 1 can of mine own self do nothing.' John v. 30. And 
again, John v. 19, 20, ' The Son can do nothing of 
himself but what he seeth the Father do.' ' The Father 
loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself 
doeth.' And again, John v. 26, 27, ' The Father hath 
given to the Son authority.' Again, Matt, xxviii. 18, 
'All power is given unto me.' Such is the explicit 
testimony of Jesus himself. Much more of a like char- 
acter might be added, but more is not needed. Com- 
ment upon these texts seems to be superfluous. They 
most obviously show, that whatever Christ performs, is 
in consequence, not of his own underived power, but 
by authority and power delegated to him as the highest 
Agent of the Deity." 

I believe, my dear Sir, we have now examined all 
the texts preceding the verse to which you especially 
directed my attention, namely, cl Beware lest any man 
spoil you, &c," and I think it has been abundantly 
proved that they do not teach the divinity of Jesus 
Christ. 



228 AN EXTRACT. 

But I will quote again from your letter. After as- 
serting that Paul had, in the 1st and 2d chapters of the 
Epistle to the Colossians, been " teaching the doctrine 
of the divinity of Jesus Christ," you say, u He speaks 
also of the union of Christ with the flesh, and with 
believers, as a mystery ; and we are particularly admon- 
ished c to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God 
and the Father and of Christ,' and further to be rooted 
and built up in him, (Christ,) and stablished in the faith, 
'as ye have been taught.' Now Paul had just been 
teaching the Divinity — the Almighty power — the in- 
herent power — (for the work of creation by proxy is 
a downright absurdity) — of Jesus Christ; and then, 
seemingly aware of the danger to which the Colossians 
would be exposed, he warns them, in the most solemn 
and energetic manner, to continue in the faith which 
they had been taught." 

I have searched diligently to find, in the first two 
chapters of the Epistle to the Colossians, anything 
about the cc mystery " of cc the union of Christ with the 
flesh;"* but it has entirely escaped my notice. In 
the 25th and 26th verses of the 1st chapter, Paul speaks 
of the " dispensation of God " which had been given 
him, and this dispensation he calls a mystery, or secret, 
which, says he, " hath been hid from ages and from 
generations, but is now made manifest to his saints ," 
and thus he declares the mystery, or secret, to exist no 

*Even according to Trinitarian views, Christ, which is not a 
proper name, but only means the Anointed — could never be pro- 
perly said to be united with the flesh, for it was only " the flesh " 
which could be " the Anointed." 



MYSTERY. 229 

longer, as a secret. Again, in the 27th verse, he says, 
a To whom God would make known what is the riches 
of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles ; " and 
how does he make it known ? What does he declare 
that mystery to be ? He declares it to be, not, as you 
say, " the union of Christ with the flesh," but, says he, 
" which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." And 
while you are upon this part of the subject, I wish you 
would read the third chapter of Ephesians, where Paul 
often speaks of a mystery, by which he means the new, 
and, to the Jews, strange doctrine of the reception of the 
Gentiles into the same covenant with the Jews ; and 
this mystery, he says, may be understood, when it is 
read. Ephes. iii. 4. 

Again, in Col. ii. 2, instead of exhorting them, as you 
have expressed it, to the acknowledgment of a mystery, 
he prays for as many as had not seen his face in the 
flesh, " That their hearts might be comforted, being 
knit together in love, and unto all riches of the full 
assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of 
the mystery of God ; " — Griesbach, high Trinitarian 
authority, omits the rest of the verse. 

This, my dear Sir, is all the mystery I can discover, 
after the most diligent search, in the portion of Scripture 
to which you have turned my attention ; namely, God's 
design to bestow salvation, through Christ, upon both 
Jews and Gentiles ; which had been a mystery, or 
what is the same thing, had been u hid from ages and 
generations," but now, in the fulness of time, " is made 
manifest," and is constantly spoken of as a mystery, or 
secret, which had been revealed. 
20 



230 CREATION BY PROXY. 

I will only touch upon your remark that " the work 
of creation by proxy is a downright absurdity," and 
observe that then you certainly make this charge, 
namely, that of teaching an absurdity, against the Scrip- 
tures. For whatever the creation was which is there 
ascribed to Christ — whether a natural or a moral crea- 
tion was intended, it is certainly ascribed to Christ as 
the Agent of another. See Ephes. iii. 9. u God, who 
created all things by Jesus Christ." Heb. i. 2. u By 
whom he (that is, God) made the worlds." 

You give great prominence to the idea that I have 
not continued in the faith, as / have been taught. Now 
do you mean as I have been taught by St. Paul, or any 
other inspired writer, or as I have been taught by my 
human teachers and guides ? The latter must be your 
meaning, for you are complaining of me because I have 
changed^ and given up the faith in which I had been 
educated. But I assert, that I have altered my opinion 
on certain points because I find that the inspired writers 
taught a different doctrine from that in which I had been 
educated. Yet it is under these circumstances, w r hen I 
now profess to abide entirely by the teaching of inspired 
men, that you complain of me. You must therefore 
mean, that T ought to continue in the faith which I de- 
rived from uninspired human teachers.* 

Now, as I think your application of that text a very 
different one from that intended by St. Paul, who was 
speaking of his own teaching, with a knowledge of his 
own special inspiration, and not of the teachings of those 

*See Appendix W. 



HUMAN TEACHING NOT INFALLIBLE. 231 

who should live hundreds of years after him, it does 
not by any means produce the effect you intended. A 
Roman Catholic, teaching the doctrines of transubstan- 
tiation and the worship of saints and saintly relics, might 
with just as much propriety take that ground with one 
w T ho was about retracting his Roman Catholic senti- 
ments. Aye, he could do it with vastly more propri- 
ety ; for it is an essential part of his system that the 
Scriptures are to be interpreted for individuals by the 
Church. But this idea is manifestly at war with the 
fundamental principles of Protestantism, and I feel 
only sorrow and surprise when I hear such sentiments 
from the Protestants of the nineteenth century. 

But it is time to make another quotation from your 
letter. You proceed to say, " Beware lest any man 
spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the 
tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and 
not after Christ." <c And why ? " you ask, u How 
were they in danger of being spoiled through philosophy 
and vain deceit ? What is the point ? What the dan- 
ger ? The 9th verse answers the question, i For in 
him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.' 
This was a fact," you say, " which they were warned 
not to assail with human reasonings." 

And who, my dear Sir, has assailed the fact ? No 
Unitarian, that I am aware of, has stricken that verse 
out of his Bible. I am very sure I have not. I only 
believe that it does not teach what you assert it teaches 
— namely, that because the fulness of God dwelt in 
Christ, he was God himself. But you go on to say, 
"Could language be more clear and precise? God 



232 



AN EXTRACT. 



who declares that he will not give his honor to another, 
and who claims universal and undivided homage, here 
affirms that the fulness of the Godhead dwells in Jesus 
Christ ; and in Phil. 2d chapter, that universal homage 
shall be paid to him. To suppose that Jesus Christ, as 
a mere human, or created Being, is a proper object of 
Divine worship, is an absurdity too great for even Uni- 
tarians. They therefore very modestly deny the decla- 
rations of God in toto regarding the honor due to Christ, 
and in their adorations to God the Father, sometimes 
allude to the Son of Mary, for whose good example's 
sake God is well pleased to bestow blessings upon man- 
kind. My soul sickens to hear my blessed Saviour so 
dishonored." 

And do you think that Unitarians feel no sickening 
of soul when they see that men will not believe the 
words of Christ himself, when he asserts, as he does 
incessantly, his inferiority to his Father ? Do they not 
feel pained when they hear men insisting that Supreme 
worship and homage belong to him who said to his dis- 
ciples, " In that day ye shall ask me nothing ;" who 
said to his importunate tempter, " Thou shalt wor- 
ship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou 
serve ; " who, when his disciples requested to be taught 
how to pray, said, u When ye pray, say, Our Father, 
who art in Heaven," &c. ? You have alluded to the 
2d chapter of Philippians, where universal homage is 
promised to Christ. But does it follow that universal 
homage should be Supreme homage ? And why have 
you overlooked the most important words in the whole 
passage — the crowning sentence — the climax ; namely, 



WORSHIP OF JESUS CHRTST. 233 

that u every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is 

Lord, TO THE GLORY OF GoD THE FATHER ?" 

But I have done. Your remark concerning the 
terms in which Unitarians speak of Christ in their ado- 
rations to God the Father, scarcely merits notice. I 
can only say I have never heard such terms used. 
Unitarians do not believe that for the sake of Christ's 
good example, God bestows blessings upon mankind. 
We believe that it is only when we follow that good 
example that God will bless us. And supposing you 
had heard Jesus called "the Son of Mary ?" Was 
he not Mary's son ? Was he not born in Bethlehem, 
and was he not subject to his parents until he commen- 
ced his Heavenly Father's work ? Until you can find 
no more heavy charges against Unitarians than that they 
call Jesus Christ the Son of Mary, you cannot justly 
reproach them, much less condemn them. 



20* 



LETTER XXVI. 



METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. 
My dear Sir : 

You say I would never have arrived at ray present 
conclusions by reading the Bible alone, and insinuate 
that I have received my ideas from Unitarian books. 
You forget my assertion, in a letter to my father, that 
my mind was satisfied upon the subject before I had 
read a single Unitarian author, excepting, of course, 
the writers of the New Testament. As this matter is 
evidently misunderstood, I will give a particular account 
of it. 

I started then in my investigation, with one idea 
firmly fixed in my mind — this idea was the unity of 
God, which doctrine is certainly revealed in the Old 
Testament. This, then, I considered a certain truth, 
and now my object in examining the JVew Testament 
was to learn whether a Trinity was there taught. I 
soon discovered another certain truth, namely, that 
Christ was a distinct being from God ; and another, 
namely, that he was called the Son of God ; and yet 
another, namely, that he was a human being. Here, 
then, were several certain truths, plainly revealed. 



METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. 235 

But I soon arrived at some passages, which seemed 
to assert, inferentially, that Christ was God. Here, 
then, was something at variance with those certain truths 
contained in the same revelation. Here was a truth, 
apparently revealed, which contradicted the certain 
truth of the Unity of God, and those three other certain 
truths, namely, that Christ was a distinct being from 
God, and that he was the Son of God, and that he was 
a human being. These truths were contradicted ; but 
still I saw nothing about the Trinity. 

I noted down these passages, and read on. The 
rest of the book still recognised, in the plainest and 
most explicit manner, all those certain truths of which 
I have spoken. The whole tenor of the New Testa- 
ment certainly proved them. Now what was to be 
done with those texts which seemed to contradict them ? 
I reasoned with myself thus ; if, in reading any other 
book, I should come to hints and statements which 
seemed to contradict the plain assertions, and to differ 
from the general scope and tenor of the work, I should 
endeavor to give to those hints and statements an inter- 
pretation and a meaning which would harmonize with 
what was plainly laid down. To do this, it would 
not be correct nor natural for me to assume incredible 
propositions. This would be no way to harmonize dis- 
cordant ideas, nor to reconcile contradictions. 

But this strange and unnatural plan, it appeared to 
me, had been pursued with the Bible. That holy book 
had been treated as we should not think it right to treat 
any other. The doctrine that Christ possessed two 
natures, a finite and an infinite one, had been assumed 



236 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION. 

to account for those passages where he seemed to be 
spoken of as God. I say this doctrine had been 
assumed, for it is nowhere plainly laid down. This 
course I could not justify, and what next was to be 
done ? 

Was it not possible that those perplexing passages 
might be interpreted in some other way ? If they 
proved what they were said to prove, namely, that 
Christ was God, they proved that there were, at the 
same time, one only God, and two Gods ; and that the 
same being had both a finite and an infinite nature. 
These things were contradictions, and could not be 
proved in any way ; nor did I see anything about the 
mystery of the Trinity. These passages then, must 
have some other meaning. I now read the various 
interpretations of learned men, both Trinitarians and 
Unitarians, and was soon satisfied that they did not 
assert the deity of Christ, but that a fair interpretation 
could be given to all of them, which would perfectly 
harmonize with those plainly revealed truths, of which 
I have spoken, and which w T ere likewise taught by the 
whole tenor of the New Testament. These passages 
then did not teach the deity of Christ. Christ was not 
God — the Bible was consistent with itself — and the 
doctrine of the Trinity existed no longer in my mind as 
an article of faith. 

You say "you should be lost if your own reason 
were to be your guide." Your expression is rather 
indefinite, and it depends upon what your exact meaning 
is, whether or not 1 can agree with you. If you mean 
that it would be dangerous — aye, fatal — to depend on 



USE OF REASON. 237 

reason alone, I fully and heartily acquiesce in your 
declaration. But if you mean that reason is to be laid 
entirely aside, I cannot at all agree with you. Without 
reason, of what possible use would a revelation be ? 
Place the Bible in the hands of an idiot, who never 
enjoyed the gift of reason — or of a madman, whose 
reason had been dethroned — and what a mockery you 
make of their sad misfortunes ? You cannot then mean 
that we are to make no use of reason. But if you 
believe that, with the revelation from our Heavenly 
Father in our hands, we are to use our utmost efforts 
to ascertain what it is that God has spoken, why then, 
as I said before, in this matter we entirely agree. I 
am as much opposed as you can be to exalting reason 
above revelation — to deciding what ought and what 
ought not to be in the Bible ; but we must certainly use 
our highest faculties and our best efforts to ascertain 
what is there. And if the Scriptures any where seem 
to teach doctrines contrary to those which they have 
elsewhere plainly taught, we are bound, if possible, to 
give those seemingly discordant passages a different 
construction ; and if, as may be the case, we cannot 
find out what they mean, we must imitate the great John 
Locke, and humbly say so ; and we must patiently 
wait until we enter upon a more perfect state of exist- 
ence, when all will be explained to us — when all that 
is dark will be brought to light — when faith will be 
exchanged for sight. 

The Rev. John Wesley, in his controversy with 
Toplady concerning Election, said, that he would not 
believe any doctrine which charged God with unright- 



238 USE OF REASON. 

eousness. No words nor texts of Scripture, he said, 
would compel him to do it. So I say in regard to the 
Trinity. No words nor texts of Scripture will compel 
me to believe that the Bible contradicts itself. We 
must keep reason in its right place, but we must not 
undervalue it. It is dangerous to use it rashly, but it 
is quite as dangerous not to use it at all. There is 
danger in everything. The very fact that we possess 
reason places us in responsible circumstances ; and 
responsibility implies danger. Our reason is the high- 
est gift of God ; let us see to it that we neglect not 
" the gift that is in us." If we make no use of our 
reason, would not our Heavenly Father justly charge 
us with the guilt of hiding our talent in the earth ? Is 
it not clear, that as each man, in his individual capacity, 
is responsible to God, so each individual must sift and 
determine this matter for himself ? At the same time, 
I heartily respond to your exclamation, " Let him that 
thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall ! " 

Again, you observe, " When I draw instruction from 
the Bible, I like to take the whole of it." My dear 
Sir, so do I. And this is a great Unitarian principle. 
They take the whole Bible, and judge of detached 
passages by its general scope and tenor. In this posi- 
tion, I am glad to be able to inform you, you will find 
yourself sustained by the whole body of Unitarians. 
And it is by adhering strictly to this great, this radical 
principle of all just interpretation, that they arrive at 
Unitarianism. 

You are certainly laboring under a mistake when you 
assert that Unitarianism u would persuade men to be at 



PRINCIPLES OF UNITARIANISM. 239 

peace with themselves, not to flee from wrath." Uni- 
tarianism does not persuade men to a false peace. It 
is not an easy, indolent religion. No, no, very far from 
it. Let any one read Dewey's Sermons on the Law 
of Retribution, and see whether Unitarianism points out 
an easy road to Heaven. " This is a system," says 
Dr. Gannett, " which requires of its disciple the great- 
est measure of goodness that he can render, which pro- 
hibits every indulgence contrary to the strictest virtue, 
and imposes continual effort and conflict. Who that 
comprehends its requisitions would ever think of pro- 
nouncing them light ? . . . . Unitarianism as we receive 
it, the patron of a lax morality and a worldly spirit ! 
Verily, it requires a confidence by no means enviable 
to make such an assertion in the face of everything that 
has been said by advocate and by opposer." # 

But, the fact is, I know of no easier mode of arriving 
at Heaven, than by the Calvinistic scheme, if that 
scheme be true. To depend for salvation entirely 
upon the merits of another, who has become our sub- 
stitute, is a very comfortable thing. But then, under 
these circumstances, what moral progress can a man be 
expected to make ? I joyfully acknowledge that those 
who hold this faith do make advances in moral growth 
and vigor ; but I believe they do it in the very teeth of 
their creed, they do it because both Scripture and 
common sense teach them that " as a man sows, so 
shall he also reap." On the other hand, the Unitarian 
doctrine that men are to be rewarded hereafter accord- 

* See Appendix L. 



240 PRINCIPLES OF UN1TARIANISM. 

ing to their works, while it is a doctrine of reason and 
of revelation, is, from its very nature, a prodigious 
incentive to constant watchfulness and warfare. All the 
expressions of the Apostle Paul, in regard to the Chris- 
tian's life of conflict and danger, Unitarians fully under- 
stand, appreciate, feel. They well know what he 
means when he speaks of u striving for the mastery." 
They can enter into his feelings of joyful exultation 
when he was able to say, U I have fought the good 
fight." They believe the Apostle James was correct 
when he said, that u by works a man is justified, and not 
by faith only." They attend to the injunction of the 
Apostle Peter, u Be diligent that ye may be found of 
him in peace, without spot, and blameless." At the 
same time they believe that their salvation is all of grace, 
or favor ; that it is obtained through the abounding 
mercy of God, in Christ; who has graciously promised 
to forgive the sins, and to overlook the shortcomings of 
those who earnestly repent and endeavor to reform. 
They believe that the lives which they live in the flesh, 
they must live by the faith of the Son of God, who 
loved them, and gave himself for them. They endeavor 
to follow him — he is their example — and thus it is 
they live by faith in him — a faith which will inspire 
them with zeal and with strength to follow him u fully." 
It seems strange to me, that any one can believe that 
the requisitions of the Unitarian faith are easy ; that only 
those who wish to lead careless lives choose that religion. 
I solemnly declare to you, that I hesitate now at many 
things which I formerly deemed matters of trivial im- 
portance. My standard of gospel morality is higher, 



PRINCIPLES OF UNITARIANISM. 241 

my views are more elevated, my aspirations after moral 
excellence altogether more ardent than they were before 
ray change of views. I earnestly wish that my standard 
of duty had been all my life what it is now ; it would 
undoubtedly have saved me a vast amount of sorrow 
and regret. At the same time I frankly confess, that 
many things which I once deemed wrong I now think 
innocent. I have learned, I hope, to discriminate more 
justly between essentials and non-essentials ; and I am 
more than ever persuaded that, instead of binding myself 
by certain outward rules and regulations, the only safe 
and certain way to live a truly Christian life, is to see 
faithfully to it that my heart is right with God. 



21 



LETTER XXVII. 



NO HUMAN CREEDS. 
My dear Sir : 

You remark that " it is a vain boast of Unitarians 
that they are free from creeds — the imposition of men." 
And you make the following inquiry : " When Unitari- 
ans are asked about their faith, do they not give the 
written opinions of their great men — Dr. Channing, 
and others ? And very various," you observe, " their 
faith is. 



11 



I reply, that when Unitarians boast that they have 
no creeds imposed upon them, they make no " vain 
boast." It is a delightful, glorious truth. If you were 
to ask me what my creed was, I should give it to you 
in the words of Scripture. Ah, I was wrong. Unita- 
rians have a creed, which they consider binding upon 
all. It is contained in the Scriptures. But if you were 
to say, " This does not satisfy me ; you and I give a 
different interpretation to these very words ; I wish to 
know what interpretation Unitarians generally give to 
those passages." I might then refer you to the works 
of their standard writers, and tell you that you would 
find in them a faithful exhibition of the Unitarian faith. 






NO HUMAN CREEDS. 243 

But I would tell you at the same time that no individual 
considers himself bound to adopt the views of any 
other individual, even of Dr. Channing ; and Dr. (Plan- 
ning himself has always taken care to have it distinctly 
understood, that he is only giving his individual opin- 
ions. Now, referring to certain writers when information 
is wanted, and being bound by a creed, are very differ- 
ent things. Again, you inquire : u Is it not true, that 
New England Unitarians, finding skepticism so rife 
among them, are about to form a creed, which they 
can show to the world as some fixed representation of 
their views ? " I can only say, in reply, that I have 
heard of nothing of the kind. It may be the case, 
however ; and where would be the harm ? And how 
would such a proceeding interfere with their great, fun- 
damental principle, that each individual is accountable 
for his opinions to God alone ? Surely, when the re- 
ligious views of a body of Christians are so shamefully 
misrepresented and so generally misunderstood, as those 
of Unitarians are by their Orthodox brethren, it is high 
time that the world should be enlightened on the subject ; 
it is high time that these misrepresentations should be ex- 
posed, and these misunderstandings, if possible, removed. 
And, as to the assertion that skepticism is u rife among 
them," I should like to know where it is not ? And is 
Unitarianism to answer for the faults of its professors ? 
Are Unitaririans, as a body, to be held responsible for 
the speculations of those who call themselves by that 
name ? Then Heaven have mercy upon us all ! 

But you go on to say : u Should my dear friend be 
suffered to ' believe a lie,' and embrace fully the doc- 



244 who are Christ's friends ? 

trines she now avows, I shall be prepared to witness in 
her downfall and apostacy from the truth, as it is in 
Jesus, the truth of that fearful declaration, ' the last 
state of that man is worse than the first.' But I hope 
otherwise of you, though I thus write. Let me admon- 
ish you to be ' slow to speak ' on this subject, to weigh 
well and deliberate long before you embark upon this 
sea of religious barrenness and unfruitfulness, and before 
you take the fatal step which will separate you from the 
real friends of the Saviour." 

And who, my dear Sir, are the real friends of the 
Saviour ? How shall we decide this important ques- 
tion ? Did not our Saviour himself teach us how to 
decide it when he said, " Ye are my friends, if ye do 
whatsoever I command you ? " The religion of Jesus 
Christ is a practical religion. When he came to save 
us — to die for us — he came to show us how we might 
be saved — to tell us what we should do to be saved. 
He never told us exactly how we should reason, nor, 
as the Athanasian creed does, what we should " think; " 
he laid down a few fundamental facts, and gave a num- 
ber of plain commands ; they are exeedingly compre- 
hensive and simple ; they are so plain, thanks be to 
God, that he who runs may read ; but further than this 
he did not go, nor did his Apostles. 

Another correspondent tells me that I have " wounded 
the Saviour in the house of his friends." By this I 
suppose is meant what you have more explicitly ex- 
pressed in the quotation upon which I have been re- 
marking ; namely, that those who belong to the church 
or " house " from which I have separated myself, 



MEN KNOWN BY THEIR FRUITS. 245 

are his friends ; and that the church or " house " to 
which I have gone, is composed of his enemies. What 
right has any church to arrogate to itself the peculiar 
title of u friends " of Christ, in opposition to those, 
who, acknowledging Christ as their Lord and Master, 
are striving to " do " his commandments — aye, and 
doing them too, if we may be allowed to judge by their 
lives of purity and benevolence ? It is high time that 
men were judged by their fruits, and not by their ortho- 
doxy. It is high time to learn that piety consists in 
what we u do," and not in what we say. I do not 
wish to be understood as conveying the idea that our 
religious belief is not of consummate importance. I 
know that it is ; for our belief influences our conduct ; 
but, in the present day, some men are too apt to rest 
satisfied with their orthodoxy. It must, at least, be 
acknowledged, that things have that appearance, when 
men are not willing to allow the name of Christians to 
those whose speculative opinions they consider unortho- 
dox, even when they seem to bring forth u the fruits 
of the Spirit, love, joy, peace," &c. Let us welcome 
as Christians all who are earnestly endeavoring to do 
what their Lord has commanded, whatever interpreta- 
tion they may give to certain passages of Scripture, 
and however they may decide certain questions which 
do not in the least affect the question of their Master's 
authority. 

Another of your remarks is of the same character as 

that I have just noticed. "Surely," you say, "you 

will not be permitted thus to wander from the fold of 

Christ to be devoured by wolves in sheep's clothing ; I 

21* 



246 THE LOST SHEEP. 

cannot believe that you will finally depart ; but I shud- 
der to think of the severe chastisements which may be 
necessary to bring you back." I trust, my dear Sir, 
you do not believe that I have wilfully wandered from 
what you assert to be the fold of Christ ; and if I am 
anxiously seeking for the truth, even in dangerous paths, 
I do not see why you should suppose my Heavenly 
Father would find it necessary to scourge me back 
again. When the shepherd left his ninety and nine 
sheep to go and seek for the one which had wandered 
away and was lost, we read that when he had found 
it, he did not scourge it back to the fold, but laid it 
"on his shoulders, rejoicing." Was not this parable 
intended as a beautiful illustration of the untiring love 
of our Heavenly Father ? And in regard to the ex- 
pression, "wolves in sheep's clothing," I am charita- 
ble enough to suppose that you used it as a mere figure 
of speech, without any definite meaning, or particular 
application. But, if you intended to apply it to Uni- 
tarians, I will only ask you to compare the controver- 
sial writings of the Orthodox and of Unitarians, and then 
candidly tell me to which you think the term "wolves " 
will most legitimately apply. 

Your wish, so kindly expressed, " that I could have 
been saved from bringing such a deep and lasting re- 
proach upon our holy religion, exhibits both your love 
for me, and your zeal for religion. But permit me to 
say, that, in this instance, I fear your zeal is more for 
certain dogmas which you think essential to religion, 
than for religion itself. And if I bring " a deep and 
lasting reproach " upon such an exclusive system, I 



EXTRACT AND REPLY. 247 

have nothing to do but to thank God, and go forward. 
That is just what I would wish to do. If I can con- 
vince any person, be that person ever so insignificant, 
that a rigid adherence to certain tenets is not religion, I 
shall not have suffered in vain. 

One of my friends alluded, in a letter to me, to the 
u awful lengths " to which I had gone. I was startled, 
and feared that my friend was under some impression 
for which there was no foundation. I wrote to request 
that friend to tell me in plain language, without any fig- 
urative embellishment, exactly what was intended by 
the expression. The reply was, " I know not of any 
thing more awful than the crime of crucifying the Son 
of God afresh, and putting him to open shame." This 
was discouraging ; I had asked for plain language, and 
I received a reply couched in highly figurative terms. 
I protest against this method of arbitrary personal ap- 
plication of figurative language. It is not reasonable, 
it is not fair. Such charges cannot be met. A ques- 
tion of interpretation must first be raised and settled. 
We must first decide, with mathematical precision, 
what course of conduct amounts to " the crime of cru- 
cifying the Son of God afresh, and putting him to open 
shame." 

I will conclude this communication by merely making 
a remark or two upon the following sentence of your 
letter. " You must admit," you observe, u that your 
your change will be followed by most serious conse- 
quences. Your writings and opinions have been pub- 
lished to the world. I cannot imagine what the effect 
will be. Your new friends cannot receive the truths 



248 EXTRACTS AND REPLIES. 

contained in them, and what good effect can they pro- 
duce on others when they learn that the writer has her- 
self renounced them." 

I have somewhere met with the remark, that tc relig- 
ion is a sentiment, and not a science." This very 
important distinction I wish my friends would endeavor 
to bear in mind. The power of religion over my heart 
will be in proportion as I bow with reverence, and sub- 
mit with childlike confidence, to the will and anthority 
of my Heavenly Father, and of his authorized messen- 
ger, Jesus Christ ; and not in proportion to my sup- 
posed understanding of the essence or nature of either 
God or Christ. Viewing religion in this light — as an 
all-absorbing sentime?it — I have not changed at all. I 
have not "renounced" the "sentiments" contained 
in my published writings. They are dearer to me than 
ever. And, moreover, my u new friends," by which 
phrase you mean Unitarians, can and do " receive 
the truths" they contain, with the exception of an occa- 
sional recognition of certain doctrines. I have never 
endeavored to settle disputed abstract questions ; what 
I have written has been merely the outpouring of my 
heart ; a heart wounded by affliction, and seeking to 
sustain itself in God, my Father, and in Christ, my 
Saviour. It is my happiness to know that many Unita- 
rians have had their faith strengthened by a simple recital 
of what God had done for one of his afflicted children, 
- — and have joined with me in my songs of triumph, 
gratitude, and praise. 



LETTER XXVIII. 



EXTRACTS AND REPLIES. 
My dear Sir, 

You speak of the " shock " you experienced when 
I " announced myself as decidedly constrained to give 
up all on which your hopes rest for the salvation of 
your soul." If you really believe that I have given up 
all on which the sinner's hope can hang, I do not won- 
der you are shocked. But surely you cannot think so. 
How shall 1 convince you that I still rely for salvation 
upon Him, who, we are taught, is " the way, the truth, 
and the life." Jesus said, "No man cometh to the 
Father but by me." It is by him that I go to the 
Father. What more can you desire, what more can I 
say ? 1 believe, as fully as you do, in the atonement, 
though you and I may differ about the philosophy (if I 
may so speak) of that atonement. 

Again, you say, " Would to God that I could, with 
the Eible in my hand, believe that, as you have ex- 
pressed it, if you are in an error, it is not a fatal one. . . . 
I fully believe," you elsewhere say, u that in renouncing 
the supreme divinity of the Lord Jesus, you renounce 
the whole system of salvation by grace, through faith in 



250 SCRIPTURE TESTS. 

Him as the atoning sacrifice for sin ; and that, dying in 
your present belief, your soul must be lost ; while you 
profess to think that you have found ' a glorious plat- 
form ' on which sincere Christians of every denomina- 
tion can meet, and exchange the right hand of fellow- 
ship." You further write, " You or we must be fatally 
wrong. It seems plain to me that Christ is God — or, 
with reverence let me write it — a blasphemer ; and 
that if you rob him of his l eternal Godhead,' you rob 
him of the glory that is his due. How then can you 
feel hurt that your friends express themselves so 
strongly ? " 

When I consider what your professed belief upon 
this subject is, I really cannot wonder at your strong 
expressions ; but I do wonder that you can believe there 
is a fatal difference between us. You surely cannot 
believe that the souls of some whom I could name, who 
have died in the Unitarian faith, are lost. Shoio me 
where either our Master or his apostles declared that 
a belief in him, as the eternal God, is necessary to sal- 
vation, and I will acknowledge that you have good rea- 
son for this item of your faith ; but all I can see that 
they ever gave as a test of Christian faith was such a 
belief in Jesus, as the Messiah, as would cause men to 
yield implicitly to his authority. They never say it is 
necessary to our salvation to be certain whether that 
authority is entirely his r own, or is derived from his 
Father ; though, at the same time, they tell us plainly 
enough from whence it really comes. Yet that is never 
made a prominent and necessary article of belief. The 
main point of inquiry is, dost thou believe that Jesus is 



SCRIPTURE TESTS. 251 

the Christ — that is, the anointed — he who was to 
come ? If we believe that he came commissioned by 
God, we shall obey him, and thus be his followers ; 
and, of course, entitled to the Christian name. When 
the belief of Unitarians leads them to reject the author- 
ity of Christ, it will be time to deny them the name of 
Christians ; but when they recognize that authority as 
fully and joyfully as you do, how can you consistently 
assert that they are not Christians ? 

I repeat it, we are merely told in the Scriptures, 
that we must believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and we 
shall be saved. And we must see to it that we have 
such a faith in Christ as will bring forth fruit unto holi- 
ness ; for we are also informed that without holiness 
no man shall see the Lord. Now, this is all which 
the Scriptures declare to be necessary to salvation ; 
namely, faith showing itself by works. If you can show 
me one passage in which it is declared that we must 
regard him who was sent by God as God himself — the 
same being by whom he was sent — the case will be 
radically altered, and I will allow that you are right 
when you insist that I am in a fatal error. But until 
you can show me some such passage — for I want no 
inferences in regard to fundamental doctrines — be- 
ware how you judge concerning my future prospects ; 
beware how you add to the word of God. 

I wish to make a short quotation from the admirable 
speech of Sir George Saville before the House of Com- 
mons, in 1772, in support of a petition presented by 
many clergymen of the Church of England for relief in 
the matter of subscription. u If the things which are 



252 TESTIMONIES OF TRINITARIANS. 

necessary to salvation," says he, u are not plainly re- 
vealed, there is no way of salvation revealed to the bulk 
of mankind. Whatever is obscurely revealed will be 
always obscure, notwithstanding our decisions. It can 
never be authoritatively determined by men. The only 
authority which can explain it, and make the explana- 
tion a test of faith, is the authority of God. As to 
what he has plainly revealed, it needs no articles to 
ascertain its meaning. We should not then adopt views 
and measures which are contracted and narrow. We 
should not set bars in the way of those who are willing 
to enter and labor in the church of God. When the 
disciples came to Christ, and complained that there 
were some who cast out devils in his name, and said, 
4 We forbade them, because they followed not us ' — 
what did our Saviour do ? Did he send them tests 
and articles to be subscribed ? Did he ask them 
whether they believed this, or that, or the other doc- 
trine ? whether they were Athanasians, or Arians, or 
Arminians ? No. He delivered that comprehensive 
maxim — ' He that is not against me, is for me.' Go 
ye, and say likewise." 

But I can bring some names of high authority who 
did not think as you do upon this subject. Dr. Dod- 
dridge, it seems, was not willing to deny the name of 
Christian, nor to refuse u the right hand of fellowship," 
to those who could not believe in the Trinity. Dr. Kip- 
pis, in the Biographia Britannica, vol. v. p. 307, thus 
writes : " Once I remember some narrow minded peo- 
ple of his (Dr. Doddridge's,) congregation gave him no 
small trouble on account of a gentleman in communion 



TESTIMONIES OF TRINITARIANS. 253 

wilh his church, who was a professed Arian, and who 
otherwise dissented from the common standard of ortho- 
doxy. This gentleman they wished either to be exclu- 
ded from the ordinance of the Lord's supper, or to 
have his attendence upon it prevented ; but the doctor 
declared, that he would sacrifice his place, and even his 
life , rather than fix any such mark of discouragement 
upon one, who, whatever his doctrinal sentiments were, 
appeared to be a true Christian." 

Dr. Burton says : " I would willingly admit, that 
salvation may be obtained without a knowledge of the 
Athanasian Creed. Thousands and millions of Chris- 
tians have gone to their graves, who have either never 
heard of it, or never understood it ; and I would add, 
that, let a man believe the Scriptures, let him profess 
his faith in Christ in the plain and simple language of 
the New Testament, and he may pass through life as 
piously and happily, he may go to his grave with as 
quiet a conscience, and, more than this, he may rise 
again as freely pardoned and forgiven, as if he had dived 
into the depths of controversy, and traced the nature of 
the Deity through the highest walks of metaphysics." 
Theol. Works, vol. 1, Serm. xii., p. 2S3. 

Bishop Watson says, when speaking of the Duke 
of Grafton, who joined the famous Essex Street 
Chapel, under the pastoral care of the venerable con- 
fessor, the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, — u I never 
attempted to discourage his profession of Unitarian 
principles ; for I was happy to see a person of his rank 
professing, with intelligence and sincerity, Christian 
22 



254 TESTIMONIES OF TRINITARIANS. 

principles.* If any one thinks that an Unitarian is 
not a Christian, I plainly say, without being an Unita- 
rian myself, that I think otherwise." Watson's Life, 
vol. i., pp. 75, 76. See also vol. ii., p. 227. See 
also the remarks of D. Turner of Abingdon, in his Free 
Thoughts on Free Inquiry, &c., where he says, u We 
should not deny them the honor of the Christian name." 

Dr. Parr speaks thus : '* Undisguisedly and indig- 
nantly, I shall ever bear testimony against the unchar- 
itable spirit which excludes the followers of Socinus 

utterly from the Catholic Church of Christ 

Without professing any partiality for Unitarians, I hold 
that they who acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Mes- 
siah ; to have had a direct and special commission from 
the Almighty, to have been endowed supernaturally with 
the Holy Spirit, to have worked miracles, and on the 
third day to have risen from the dead, — I hold, that 
men, thus believing, have a sacred claim to be called 
Christians." Parr's Works, vol. vii., pp. 9, 10. 

Honor be to those liberal hearted men ! There is, 
of a truth, the true spirit of Christianity. Why can we 
not all forget our differences, and go to work together 
for the advancement of our Master's cause — for the 
spread of our Master's kingdom ? The enemies of 
Christ are taking the advantage — an advantage not to 

* This reminds me of a circumstance which recently occurred 
within my own knowledge. A clergyman visiting a lady who 
had been brought up in the Presbyterian church, but who was 
then attending the Episcopal, said to her, " Madam, I hope soon 
to see you a good Presbyterian." " Sir," she replied, "I would 
much rather be a good Christian." 



TESTIMONIES OF TRINITARIANS. 255 

be despised — of the want of union and confidence 
among his professed disciples. And let us all remem- 
ber the solemn remark of the immortal Baxter, U Whilst 
we are wrangling here in the dark, we are dying, and 
passing to the world that will decide all our controver- 
sies, and the safest passage thither is by peaceable holi- 
ness." 



LETTER XXIX. 



CAUSES OF INFIDELITY. 
My dear Sir : 

I Have frequently heard it asserted of late that the 
present age is preeminently an age of infidelity, and I 
have unhesitatingly assented to the proposition. I did 
so because I thought that a belief in certain dogmas 
was a necessary part of a belief in Christianity itself; 
and it appeared to me quite certain that those peculiar 
dogmas icere losing their hold upon the minds of men. 
Therefore it was that I verily thought that Christian- 
ity itself was every day becoming far less valuable to 
the majority of men. And it may be so ; I do not 
pretend to judge. If it be true that infidelity is on the 
increase, is it not in a great measure owing to the fact 
that tests are required by those who think they hold ec- 
clesiastical authority, to which men, who value religious 
freedom, and the right of private judgment, will not 
submit ? 

It appears to me that Hume was not far from the 
truth when he jeeringly asserted, that the popular theol- 
ogy had " a kind of appetite for absurdity, and contra- 



CAUSES OF INFIDELITY. 257 

diction." And he really seems to have had in his nn'nd 
persons very much like some of those who live in the 
present day, when he speaks of u devout votaries, who 
desire an opportunity of subduing their rebellious rea- 
son by the belief of the most unintelligible sophisms." 
What Hume, the infidel, spoke in derision, many sin- 
cere Christians earnestly believe and lament. The 
illustrious Duke of Grafton declared it to have been 
his opinion that the Christian religion " having been cor- 
rupted from very early times by various means, and 
these corruptions having been mistaken for essential 
parts of it, had been the cause of rendering the whole 
religion incredible to many men of sense." And Dr. 
Priestley, in a letter to his friend Mr. Lindsey, speak- 
ing of an unbeliever with whom he had been conversing, 
says, cc He, like thousands of others, told me, that he 
was so much disgusted with the doctrines of the church 
of England, especially the Trinity, that he considered 
the whole business as an imposition, without further 
inquiry." 

Now it is no crime to doubt. The moment a man 
honestly doubts, he shows his anxiety to believe on cor- 
rect principles. And if men were permitted to doubt, 
without having the hue and cry of "infidel" raised 
against them, — if men's doubts were more respected, 
they would be more calmly and earnestly met, and there 
would be less infidelity in the world. Many an honest 
and independent mind, in its search after truth, has be- 
come " disgusted " at the injustice with which it has 
been treated, has given up the search altogether, and 
taken refuge in the gloomy shades of infidelity, rather 
22* 



258 CAUSES OF INFIDELITY. 

than encounter the scorching heat of bigotry. It is a 
man's own fault, I confess, if he allow himself thus to 
be worried from the field, and driven from the object of 
his search ; but there is a fault elsewhere. It requires 
a love for truth which few men possess to be willing to 
brave opposition, and to encounter fanaticism and intol- 
erance for its attainment. 

An attentive and candid observer of the current liter- 
ature of the present age cannot fail to be struck with 
the fact, that the religion of Jesus Christ does not hold 
that place which it deserves in the affections of popular 
writers. In searching for a reason for this melancholy 
fact, will it not be apparent that it is mainly owing to 
the false ideas, so generally prevalent, of what religion 
is, and in what it consists ? It is fashionable to make 
religion consist in a formal assent to certain inferential 
propositions, contained in the formulas of ecclesiastical 
bodies, and not in an assent to the simple truths of the 
Bible as each man is able to collect them for himself. 
Men whose minds have been liberalized by general 
study, and strengthened by habits of original thought, 
will not be thus trammelled. They plainly perceive 
that they can form as correct a judgment of the truths 
of the Bible as other men, and they claim the privilege 
of doing it. But, by common consent, they cannot be 
admitted into the Christian community till they are 
willing to receive certain dogmas to which the majority 
of the Christian world have pledged themselves. Hence, 
it is too often the case, that, unless religion has taken a 
powerful hold of their affections, they turn away in 
discouragement or displeasure from the whole concern. 



SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 259 

Thus religion is made to suffer for the sad mistakes 
which are committed in her name. 

When the public mind has been unnaturally strained in 
one direction, a corresponding rebound in the opposite 
one may always be expected. Look at Germany, 
and see an illustration of this general rule. Her 
theologians, having burst asunder the fetters in which 
they had been bound, have indulged themselves in such 
freedom of speculation, that fancy seems almost to have 
usurped the place of calm reason and sober judgment. 
This will not last. Even now the disease is working 
its own cure. She has the Bible, and that will gradu- 
ally remove her errors, and teach her the truth. The 
German theologians commenced their inquiries at a time 
when infidelity was at work over the whole European 
continent — infidelity which had, naturally enough, taken 
the place of superstition. As I said before, they have 
the Bible, and if they seek, they will find. Let us 
never be afraid of free inquiry when the Bible is its 
subject and its guide. 

I believe that the minds of many men are stirred upon 
the subject of religion as they have never been before ; 
that the religious principle is taking firmer root in men's 
hearts than it has ever done before. The consequence 
is, that there is a general and decided movement in the 
Christian world. There are those, on the one hand, 
who are in favor of drawing tighter and closer the fetters 
and subjects of ecclesiastical rule and order ; while, on 
the other hand, there are those who earnestly desire to 
see a perfect exhibition of religious liberty and equality, 
in the broadest sense of those terms. No one can 



260 SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 

doubt this, who will attentively watch the signs of the 
times — the controversies and the struggles which are 
going on amid every sect in Christendom. I will allude, 
by way of illustration, to late movements among several 
orthodox religious bodies. See how the Episcopal 
church is convulsed to its very centre ; how the Pres- 
byterian church has been rent asunder ; and how among 
the Methodists, and Baptists, and others, the same 
principles are at work. Look at the late movements 
in the American Tract Society. Its publishing com- 
mittee have been publicly censured for altering the 
works of President Edwards to suit the altered taste of 
the times. The rigors of Calvinism must be softened, 
or it will not now be received. Those who are curious 
upon this subject will perhaps be interested in compar- 
ing some of the works of Edwards, as recently publish- 
ed by the Tract Society, with the same works as they 
originally came from his hands. 

On the other hand, look at the spirit of rigid ortho- 
doxy as it has recently been exhibited at the annual 
meeting of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
Church. During the debate concerning the validity of 
Roman Catholic baptism, a prominent member of that 
body asserted, that there was not truth enough in the 
church of Rome to save a sinner. Did he forget the 
name of Fenelon ? Did he never hear of the great and 
good Quesnel ? Has the memory of Pascal ceased 
from a world which he enlightened and sanctified by his 
learning and piety ? Has history never informed him 
of Massillon, who in the polluted atmosphere of the 
court of Louis XIV. kept his lamp trimmed, and was 



SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 261 

a bright and shining light ? — to whom the monarch 
himself confessed, " Father, when I hear other preach- 
ers, I go away much pleased with them ; but whenever 
I hear you, I go away much displeased with myself.'' 
Has he never seen any private Christians belonging to 
that communion, who feared God and worked right- 
eousness, — of whom the Scriptures declare, that, in 
every nation, they who do these things shall find accept- 
ance ? It would be amusing, were it not so lamentable, 
to see infallibility thus arrayed against infallibility.* 

While then, it may be true that the majority of men 
are growing more thoughtless and irreligious, it appears 
to me that many of those who do think are thinking to 
some purpose, — are learning to discriminate between 
essentials and non-essentials. Thus are they aiding to 
divest the religion of Jesus Christ of those human ad- 
ditions — " terrene concretions," as an old writer quaintly 
calls them — which have hindered its spread in the 
world. Thus are they endeavoring to hold it up in its 
wondrous beauty and simplicity, before the eyes of 

* President Quincy, in his " Speech on the Minority Report of 
Mr. Bancroft," makes an amusing remark, which will apply very 
well here. t; When the Reformation came/* says he, " and sects 
multiplied, the leaders of every sect realized the advantage the 
Romish hurch possessed in St. Peter's keys and, as they could 
not divest that church of those keys, they set themselves to work, 
and manufactured little pass-keys, as like to St Peter's as possible, 
and taught their converts to believe that they were quite as good, 
if not a little better, than the great keys of St. Peter; being made 
of the same material, a little lighter, not quite so burdensome, and 
altogether as sure. 

" Now I cannot find," he goes on to say, " that the sect called 
Unitarian, ever made to itself a pass-key," &c. 



262 SIGNS OF THE TIMES. 

an admiring multitude ; and surely they will have their 
reward. 

Ah, my dear Sir, it is all in vain now to claim for 
certain systems, the inventions of men, and sustained by 
human power, the same authority they had when called 
forth by a different slate of things, in a different age of 
the world. The world, as it grows old, grows wise ; at 
least, it thinks so ; and will not consent to be under 
tutors and governors as in its childhood. Ignorance 
and superstition have fled before knowledge, and a ser- 
vile spirit has given place to a spirit of liberty. This 
state of things has its dangers, I confess ; but still the 
fact remains that such a state exists, and men must pre- 
pare themselves for its development. 

I honestly believe that, in proportion as men are re- 
leased from the tyranny of the dogmas imposed by hu- 
man creeds, will pure and undefiled religion extend and 
flourish. Yet I do not at all wonder that sectarians, 
honest and pious men, who hold, as I once did, the 
necessity of believing certain tenets not explicitly taught 
in the word of God, should be alarmed at what seems 
to them the spread of infidelity. Once it seemed so to 
me ; but over what I formerly mourned, I now rejoice. 
God be praised, that men are learning to take the Bible 
to their free hearts — to clasp it with honest independ- 
ence, and hold it firmly there. God be praised, that 
they will allow no human authority to come between 
their Bibles and their hearts — their God and themselves. 
The moment men do this, Christianity must triumph. 
There is a wonderful adaptedness of the simple truths 
of religion to man's miseries and necessities. But, so 



SINGS OF THE TIMES. 263 

long as these simple truths are obscured by the tradi- 
tions of men, they must, to a great degree, lose their 
power ; and the peaceful religion of Jesus Christ will 
be, as it has too often been, the apple of discord 
among the sons and daughters of men, — the watch-word 
of angry contention and party strife. 

I will conclude this letter with an anecdote of the 
celebrated Col. Lehmanowsky. When he first enlisted 
in the French army, as Napoleon was one day review- 
ing his troops, something occurred, perhaps the passing 
of a religious procession, which caused all the Catho- 
lics to kneel, and bow themselves to the ground. Leh- 
manowsky stood erect. " Why do you not kneel ? " 
inquired Napoleon. cc Sire," replied the soldier, U I 
cannot ; I am a Protestant." u Fall back then," said 
the Emperor mildly, and the soldier did so. u I will 
watch that man," said Lehmanowsky to himself ; " he 
respects my conscience." My dear Sir, let us all re- 
spect each other's consciences. 



LETTER XXX. 



PAINFUL THEMES. 
Mr dear Sir : 

It gives me a great deal of pain when you say, " Hence- 
forth our religious sympathies are to be uncongenial." 
There is, you assert " no middle ground, no e Platform ' 
on which we can meet. If Christ be God," you ob- 
serve, " and you refuse to worship him as God, and to 
receive him as such, you reject the only way of salva- 
tion which the Gospel provides." Enough has been 
said upon this subject in former letters, to render it un- 
necessary to enlarge upon it here ; but I will merely 
remark, that if there is to be no religious sympathy be- 
tween us, the fault is yours, not mine. Knowing per- 
fectly well your sentiments and my own, T feel that there 
are many chords that can vibrate in unison, if we will 
only allow them to give forth their natural sounds. 
Time alone will show whether I have so far lost my re- 
ligious feelings as would be indicated by the result you 
anticipate. It is mournful to have to acknowledge 
that you are not the only dear friend who feels in this 
way. Another writes, u I feel very sad whenever I 
think of the past. For the future our intercourse can- 



PAINFUL THEMES. 265 

not be quite the same. I find myself considering how 
your change will affect you about every thing that comes 
up before me. I believe it to be so great a change, that 
it must seriously alter your views of things around and 
above you. But I cannot cease to love you, and to 
desire your love in return." At another time she 
writes : "I have had some bitter moments since I re- 
ceived your letter. I have very few friends of my 
younger days left. Death and life's changes have de- 
prived me of many, and now a bitter separation must 
take place between spirits that have long depended upon 
each other for intellectual improvement and social hap- 
piness." 

How very sad this is ! In view of this painful state 
of things, when I have heard expressions of heartfelt 
sympathy so freely poured forth for my parents and 
friends, I have been inclined to ask, is there no sympa- 
thy for me ? Am I not a sufferer too ? Is there no 
one who can realize what I have lost — what I have 
sacrificed to what I deem the cause of Truth ? In the 
words of a Unitarian writer, I will ask, if " the standing 
forth, for conscience' sake, as a mark of general oblo- 
quy, the being shunned and vilified, the bearing of hard 
names and cruel insinuations, the loss of reputation 
among the great body of the people, and the wounds of 
private friendship " — to me far more painful than all the 
rest — are nothing ? Are all these things nothing ? 
Ah, there are times, my dear Sir, when, in the agony 
of my feelings, I have been inclined to exclaim, in the 
touching language of inspiration, " All ye that pass by, 
23 



266 JOHN BLANCO WHITE. 

come and see if there is any sorrow like unto my 
sorrow ? " 

Yet all these things will not, cannot move me, nor 
cause me to deny what I believe to be the truth as it is 
in Jesus. I am serious and earnest in this matter, and 
well may I be so, for it is a serious business. I did not 
take this step without counting the cost. I well knew 
it would be unpopular. I had some anticipation of the 
contumely and reproach I should bring upon myself for 
presuming to differ from the majority ; I knew that my 
motives would be misunderstood and misrepresented ; 
of all this I seriously thought ; for all this I was in a 
measure prepared ; but I must, in candor, say, that I 
did not dream of the extent to which the spirit of ortho- 
doxy would carry some of its votaries. Some of the 
things which I have suffered were naturally to be ex- 
pected ; they will always be the lot of every one who 
takes any uncommon step, while the majority of persons 
in every community spend their time, as did the Athe- 
nians of old, u in nothing else, but either to tell, or to 
hear some new thing." 

As I have said in another letter, before I began to 
investigate the main point which has now separated me 
from nearly all my relatives and friends, ray views upon 
other points had become essentially modified. I can 
say of myself as some one has said of John Blanco 
White, that his mind, which had been bound by the 
fetters of Jesuitism, " rushed to a compromise, and 
compromises," remarks the author, "only last for a 
time." He first took refuge in the established Church 
of England, but his active mind cast off one fetter after 



GENERAL REMARKS. 267 

another, till finally he stood boldly forth in the ranks of 
liberal Christianity, and avowed himself a Unitarian. 
Like him, may I be cheered and sustained by this 
simple and scriptural faith, during the remnant of my 
life, and in the article of death. 

Well, as I said before, the u compromise " which I 
had made did not last long. After a while T came to 
the great inquiry whether the doctrine of the Trinity 
was taught in the Bible. After a diligent search I found, 
that, to my apprehension, it was not there taught. The 
question I then asked myself was this, what is my duty? 
In view of all the circumstances, some of them very 
peculiar, of my case, what does truth, what does my 
own conscience, what does God require of me ? In 
this solemn attitude, feeling intensely my responsibilities 
to God and to my fellow men, I have made my deci- 
sion. If I am mistaken, my mistake has been, and is, 
an honest one. With my views of what constitutes an 
honest character, I could not have acted differently. 
In the words of the Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, I must 
say, " I was obliged to pursue this course, whatever I 
suffered by it, unless I would lose all inward peace, and 
hope of God's favor and acceptance in the end." 

Thanks be to God, I am enjoying a new life. While 
my friends are mourning over me, I am rejoicing with a 
calm and holy joy which has spread itself to the inmost 
recesses of my soul. We are to be made perfect 
through suffering. It seems to me a mistaken idea 
that the Christian must wait till he dies before he can 
taste the blessedness of heaven. Our heaven may 
begin below. The soul may be in heaven while it 



268 



GENERAL REMARKS. 



tabernacles in the flesh. In our ideas of what heaven 
is, there is too much of the material, and too little of 
the spiritual. Heaven, I take it, does not mean any 
particular spot in God's universe, but that state of the 
soul which fits it for the enjoyment of God. When the 
soul, as it often does, rises above this world, is dead to 
its follies, its temptations, its sins, and its sorrows, then 
it is in heaven. And yet, while it is joined to the flesh, 
it must be subject to the variations arising from its situ- 
ation, it can only be made perfect, as the soul of our 
Master was, through suffering. Then, while we en- 
deavor to avoid the cause of suffering — that sin which 
brings death — let us welcome every trial sent by our 
heavenly Father as a bitter, yet salutary medicine ; let 
us meekly endure, and be thankful for, every sorrow and 
every pang. Then shall these painful separations be 
our "light afflictions," which will t( work out for us a 
far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory." 

I do not believe, my dear Sir, that my friends would 
feel as they do if they would only be willing to read, or 
to hear, with candid attention, what Unitarians have to 
say in their own defence. Among the great mass of the 
Orthodox, there is a great amount of ignorance and pre- 
judice upon this subject. I have every reason to believe 
that those of my friends who have spoken most confi- 
dently against Unitarians, are as ignorant of them, and 
of their principles, as expressed in their writings, as I 
once was myself. I find, on the other hand, that those 
who know them best, who have been most associated 
with them — how much soever they may differ from 
them in doctrine — are most sparing of invective and 
denunciation. 



UNWILLINGNESS TO READ. 269 

It seems strange to me that good people should be 
willing to condemn their brethren without even giving 
them a hearing. There is a strange reluctance among 
the Orthodox to read the writings of Unitarian authors, 
and yet no man has a right to judge another merely 
upon hearsay. " We should imagine," says Burnap, 
"that all fair-minded men, who have often heard us 
censured, would gladly embrace the opportunity of 
hearing our defence, that by knowing the arguments 
upon both sides, they might have the means of making 
up their own judgments. Any unwillingness to do this, 
must arise either from a distrust of what they have 
already embraced as truth, or from the claim of infalli- 
bility. If a man feels a fear lest his opinions may be 
shaken, what is this but a confession that he already 
suspects they are unsound ? He is already a doubter. 
Does he feel confident of his infallibility ? Who can 
claim infallibility in this imperfect state ? Who has so 
much light on any subject, that he can receive no more ? 
c Prove all things,' says the Apostle, c Hold fast that 
which is good.' " 

This unwillingness to read often arises from the fear 
of having one's peace of mind disturbed by the consid- 
eration of arguments which it may be difficult to over- 
throw. But is not this preferring peace before sound 
doctrine ? Some persons seem to think that peace is 
to be preserved at the expenre of every thing else. But 
this was not the idea of an inspired Apostle. " First 
pure," says he, "then peaceable." "The peace of 
mankind," said Mr. Hans Stanley, when he was oppos- 
ing the petition of the English clergymen for relief in 

23* 



270 UNWILLINGNESS TO READ. 

the article of subscription — " The peace of mankind 
is a fortieth article of my religion, which I hold to be 
much more important than any of the thirty-nine." 
There are not a few in the present day who appear to 
be decidedly of the opinion of Mr. Hans Stanley. 

" I cannot but think," said the excellent Duke of 
Grafton, u that a belief in the divinity of Christ, and 
the invocation of him as God, is displeasing to the 
Almighty, as breaking his first great and unrepealed 
command ; and that every man who wilfully neglects 
to inquire has much to answer for." u The lovers of 
truth," said Sir George Saville, " will love all sincere 
inquirers after it, though they may differ from them in 
various religious sentiments. For it is to impartial and 
free inquiry only that error owes its ruin and truth its 
success." And in another place he says, " When I 
see a rivulet flow to the top of a high rock, and requir- 
ing a strong engine to force it back again, then shall I 
think that freedom of inquiry will be prejudicial to 
truth." 

Why then, I again earnestly inquire, is there this 
universal determination, among the Orthodox, not to 
read Unitarian books, and not to allow them to be read, 
so far as their influence can prevail to accomplish the 
object ? What does it mean ? Are the arguments in 
favor of the Unitarian, stronger than those in favor of 
the Trinitarian scheme ? If they are, they deserve to 
be considered, surely. And if they are not, they ought 
not to be feared. When I hear it confidently asserted 
that Unitarians do not believe in regeneration, nor in the 
atonement, nor in a Saviour, nor in a Holy Spirit, I 



AN EXTRACT. 271 

have a right to demand of those who make such asser- 
tions, that they will point me to the Unitarian works 
where these things are denied. And I have also a right 
to demand that they will give their attention when I 
point them to Unitarian works where a belief in those 
things is expressly asserted and proved. 

And now, my dear Sir, I have but little more to say. 
I have intended to do what is right ; may God and my 
fellow-men forgive me if I have done what is wrong. 
I am firm and happy in my present opinions, but I shall 
always be ready to exchange them for any which may 
be more according to the Scriptures of truth. At this 
most solemn crisis of my life, human praise or censure 
affect me not. Let me explain myself. They are 
nothing, I mean, in comparison with the approbation or 
disapprobation of God and my own conscience. At 
the same time, I should be either more or less than hu- 
man, did I not most keenly feel the severe and heart- 
affecting trials through which I am passing. I cannot 
better conclude than in the words of the late Rev. John 
Sherman, in an address to the youth of his congrega- 
tion at Mansfield, Conn., from which he was dismissed 
in consequence of holding Unitarian opinions. " The 
subject," he says, alluding to the same subject which 
has been engaging our attention — " The subject is of 
primary importance, and demands your serious and 
attentive consideration. Let me exhort you to search 
the Scriptures diligently, and see whether they teach 
you that three divine persons, three distinct moral 
agents, make, when added together, only one individual 
being. Should the result of your investigation comport 



272 AN EXTRACT. 

with the doctrine which I have taught you from the 
Scriptures, I wish you may be duly impressed with the 
importance of openly avowing it, and appearing as its 
advocates ; that you will never be ashamed of the inter- 
esting truth, but boldly and faithfully stand in its defence, 
though the multitude should be against you. Let your 
zeal, however, be well tempered with Christian charity. 
Be moderate and candid, liberal and catholic, in your 
treatment of those who may differ. Above all, always 
remember that the best orthodoxy is a faithful obser- 
vance of the sacred precepts of that One God whom 
you profess and acknowledge." 



APPENDIX. 



APPENDIX. 



A. 



In regard to the different senses in which the term God 
may be used, I have recently met with testimony, which, 
to some persons, may be rather new and startling. I will 
introduce this testimony by a short extract from a pub- 
lished sermon recently preached by the Rev. Dr. Gilman 
in the Unitarian church of Charleston, S. C. It is enti- 
tled " Unitarian Christianity no Novel Device." " Nearly 
a hundred years ago," says he, " the Pastor of a Baptist 
Church in this city, with his congregation, adopted Arian 
sentiments, which he publicly defended in his discourses, 
and explained in a printed catechism still extant, and of 
which a copy may be seen in the library of your speaker." 
In an Appendix, he says : " The Baptist Catechism, re- 
ferred to in this page, is a curious document, dated 
Charleston, and is dedicated to Mrs. Amarantha Farr, 
Mrs. Francis Elliott, Mrs. Elizabeth Elliott, and Mrs. Eli- 
zabeth Williamson, all descendants, by blood or marriage, 
of Mr. William Elliott. The following extracts will suffi- 
ciently illustrate the assertion made in the discourse : 
. " i Qu. What are we then to believe of Christ Jesus ? 
It is commonly said we allow him to he no more than a 
mere man, such as ourselves. 



276 



APPENDIX. 



Ans. But this is untrue. For we confess Jesus Christ 
was in the beginning of the world, with God and was 
God. And after his Resurrection, he was made and 
appointed Lord and God over all, the Father only excepted, 
who put all things under him. 

Qu. Whence came this Calumny 1 

Ans. Why hence ; we say, though Jesus Christ was 
God above all other Beings but the Father, he was not the 
Most High God : but the Father only was greater than 
Christ, and his God and Head. 

Qu. You seem to make two Gods, but the Scripture 
declares there are no more Gods than one 7 

Ans. The Scripture uses the word God in two differ- 
ent significations, first, to denote the Supreme or Most 
High, who is so called by Way of Eminence. And in 
this sense the Scriptures use the Word, when they assert 
there is but one God : There being but one supreme God, 
and no more. But at other Times, the Word God denotes 
any Person of Power and Authority; and so Angels, 
Magistrates, and Prophets, whom God invests with Author- 
ity and Power by his Commission, are called Gods, and 
in this sense, there are Lords many and Gods many. 

Qu. What worship is due to Christ ? 

Ans. We are to give Glory to God, and offer our 
Prayers to God, thro' him. 

Qu. May we not give Glory and Praise, and offer up 
prayers to him 1 

Ans. There are some instances of giving Glory to 
Christ, and some short ejaculatory Prayers offered to him; 
and both may be done, provided we remember we give 
him Glory out of Reverence to God's Command, and pray 
to him as God's Vicegerent, and not as the supreme God 
himself; but the praising and praying to God thro' him, 



APPENDIX. 277 

is both the most common and exact form of Worship, and 
least liable to Mistakes. 

Qu. What other Worship is due to Him ? 

Ans. We ought to be baptized in his Name, and to 
commemorate his Sufferings in the Sacrament of the Lord's 
Supper. 

Qu. Can we he guilty of Idolatry in worshipping Jesus 
Christ ? 

Ans. Yes, the Majority of Christians are guilty of it, 
by giving him the Worship proper to the Father alone : 
They exceed the Limit of God's Command in this Partic- 
ular, whereby Jesus Christ, who came to abolish Idolatry, 
is made the greatest Idol in the World.' " 



B. 

This passage, " he called them Gods, to whom the word 
of God came," appears to me to throw great light upon 
that much contested passage which forms the proem to 
St. John's Gospel. St. John seems to have been writing 
against those who believed as did Philo, the Jewish Plato, 
and the Alexandrian Jews, that the Logos was an emana- 
tion from the Deity, and a different person from God him- 
self. He tells them that the Word or Wisdom, or Rea- 
son of God, as it is called by most of the Greek Fathers, 
— that this Word, or Wisdom, or Reason which created 
all things, and in which was Life, and which was mani- 
fested in the flesh, or was "made flesh" — was, as the 
acute philosopher Thomas Brown expresses it, "not any 
24 



278 



APPENDIX. 



thing different from God himself." Now this "Word" 
came to Christ, in an especial manner, through him God 
manifested himself to the world as he never had done be- 
fore. But if those were called Gods to whom the word of 
God came, then, in this sense, Christ can be called a God. 
Le Clerc, who was a Trinitarian, does not apply the first 
verse of John's Gospel to the second person in the Trin- 
ity, but says, " The meaning of the Evangelist is, that 
philosophers spoke agreeably to truth when they said, 
that, at the beginning of the world, there was Reason, 
or Divine Intelligence, which had created all things." 

Some Trinitarians think that the phrase "the Word" 
was used by John to denote the Messiah, because it was 
thus used in the Chaldee paraphrases or Targums, but 
other learned Trinitarians think there is no foundation for 
such a supposition. Michaelis says, " Though they (the 
Rabbins) frequently used the expression ' the word of 
God/ especially in their Targums or paraphrases, they did 
not mean to express a separate and distinct being from 
Jehovah himself, or, as we should say, the second person 
of the Trinity." Introd. to the New Test. vol. iii. pp. 
280, 281. Dr. Burton says, " It has been proved satisfac- 
torily that Memra, (or, the Word,) is never used in the 
Targums for a distinct and separate person; it is, in fact, 
only another form for the pronoun himself" Theol. Works, 
vol. iii. Bampt. Lect. pp. 221, 222. It appears clear to 
me that John was teaching only that the Logos, which 
was manifested to the world, through Christ, was God 
himself. And John keeps up this idea through the pas- 
sage. " All things were made by it? &c, for Dr. Camp- 
bell says, " every version which preceded it, (that is, the 
common translation,) as far as I have been able to discover, 
uniformly employed the neuter pronoun it. Mitford, like- 



APPENDIX. 



2/9 



wise a Trinitarian, says, "The original (nor is the obser- 
vation new) would equally bear the version ' all things 
were made through it,'" &c. We learn that "by the 
word of the Lord were the heavens made/' "he spake and 
it was done." 



C. 

The following are the remarks of Trinitarian writers 
concerning the passage, " Thy throne, O God, &,c." as it 
occurs in the Psalms, and in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 
They are taken from a remarkable volume entitled, " The 
Concessions of Trinitarians; " from which volume I have 
elsewhere quoted largely. Of the verse, as it occurs in 
the 45th Psalm, the following interpretations are given : 

" Thy throne may God establish forever." — Dr. Geddes. 

" Thy throne, O divine Prince ! is forever and ever." 
Mudge. 

" Thy throne, O Solomon ! by the blessing of God, is 
to last for many generations." — Dr. Wells. 

Calmet says, the Hebrew word, here translated God, " de- 
signates the rank of a judge and sovereign ; as if the Psalm- 
ist in connecting it with that of the throne of the Messiah, 
meant to say, that Jesus should be appointed by his Father 
the judge of the living and the dead, possess the throne of 

David, his ancestor, and reign over the true Israel 

during all eternity." Limborch says, the title God, " is 
attributed to Solomon, by reason of his regal dignity 3 
which was supreme in Israel, and in the same sense as 



280 APPENDIX. 

kings and magistrates are called gods and children of the 
Most High. Ps. Ixxxii. 6. But in a more sublime sense it 
is spoken of Christ, the antitype of Solomon, on account 
of his kingly dignity, by which he had all power in hea- 
ven and in earth, all things being subject unto him, except 
He alone who put all things under him." 

The remarks which follow are upon the same text as it 
occurs in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Wiclif renders it, 
"God thy throne is into the world of world." Tyndal, 
" God thy seat shall be forever and ever." Griesoach, 
" God (is) thy throne forever and ever." A writer in the 
Biblical Repository for Jan. 1839, says, " Here the Son is 
addressed by the title God; but the context shows it is an 
official title, which designates him as a king ; he has a 
kingdom, a throne, a sceptre; and in verse 9, he is com- 
pared with other kings, who are called his fellows; out 
God can have no fellows. As the Son, therefore, he is 
classed tcith the kings of the earth ; and his superiority 
over them consists in this, that he is anointed with the oil 
of gladness above them, inasmuch as their thrones are 
temporary, but his shall be everlasting." See Concessions 
of Trinitarians, pp. 166, 167, 529, 530. 



D. 

I copy from the Concessions of Trinitarians, the follow- 
ing remarks upon this passage, abridged from Erasmus. 
" This passage may be pointed and rendered in three dif- 
ferent ways : First, ' Of whom, according to the flesh, is 



APPENDIX. 281 

Christ, who is over all. God be blessed forever.' Second, 
' Of whom, according to the flesh, is Christ, who, being 
God over all, is blessed forever.' And, third, which is 
perfectly suitable to the purport of the discourse, * Of 
whom is Christ according to the flesh, 5 finishing the sen- 
tence here, and subjoining what follows — ' God, who is 
overall, be blessed forever,' — as an ascription of praise 
for our having received the law, the covenant, and the 
prophecies, and lastly, Christ sent in human nature ; privi- 
leges which God, by his unspeakable counsels, had be- 
stowed for the redemption of mankind. And here, if the 
word God be understood to mean the whole Sacred Trin- 
ity, (as is frequently done in Scripture, where, for example, 
we are commanded to worship God, and to serve him only,) 
then will Christ not be excluded; but, if it be explained 
to denote the person of the Father, (which is a common 
signification of the term God, as used by St. Paul, when 
Christ or the Spirit is mentioned in conjunction,) then, 
though clear as noon-day that, in other places, Christ, as 
well as the Father and the Holy Ghost, is called truly God, 
this passage will not be valid to confute the Arians ; there 
being nothing whatever to prevent its application to the 
Father. Those, therefore, who contend that in this text 
Christ is clearly termed God, either place little confidence 
in other passages of Scripture, — deny all understanding 
to the Arians, — -or pay scarcely any attention to the style 
of the Apostle. A similar passage occurs in 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; 
' The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is 
blessed forever ; ' the latter clause being undeniably re- 
stricted to the Father. If, however, the church teaches 
that Rom. ix. 5, must be interpreted of the deity of the 
Son, the church must be obeyed ; though this is not suf- 
ficient to convince heretics, or those who will listen only 
24 * 



282 



APPENDIX. 



to the words of Sacred Writ; but, if she were to say, that 
that passage cannot be otherwise explained in conformity 
with the Greek, she would assert what is confuted by the 
thing itself." 

Voter says, that the passage we are considering " is a 
parenthesis and a doxology, which refers either to Christ, 
the nearest antecedent, or to God the Father, but to which 
it is scarcely possible to determine. The words 6 wv ev?.oy 
cannot be construed as in 2 Cor. xi. 31 ; for the verb be 
must, in Rom. ix. 5, be supplied. Those words may, 
indeed, be easily connected with the preceding ; but Paul 
could begin a new proposition with the same expression, 
q wi, as in John iii. 31 ; viii. 47. On the other hand, since 
the words 6 sirt nmxm> 0sog are elsewhere said only of God 
the Father, is it not what is termed a petilio principii to 
assert that they are here applied to the Messiah?" 

Wilson, the compiler of the book from which the fore- 
going extracts have been taken, goes on to remark : 
" Without taking into account the conjectural criticism 
by which some Unitarians would alter the reading 6 wv 
into cov d, 'of whom, or whose, is the God over all,' &c, in 
accordance with a principle which, Ernesti says, is 
- not to be entirely neglected,' though he does not apply it 
to Rom. ix. 5 ; — and without also placing undue stress 
on the fact, that not a little doubt existed in the minds of 
Erasmus, Grotius, and others, as to the propriety of re- 
taining the word God, which seems to have been omitted 
in manuscripts used by some of the Fathers; it may be 
remarked, that the quotations here made from many of the 
most acute critics in the "orthodox" body, forbid any 
reliance on the passage as a proof that Christ is Almighty 
God. For it is admitted, that the punctuation may be 
changed ; that the latter clause of the original, either 



APPENDIX. 283 

after aaqxa or narrow, may be rendered as a doxology to 
the Father ; — that, even according to those modes of 
pointing and translating which appear most favorable to 
Trinitarian theology, Christ is not called the Supreme 
God, but Lord over all, in his human nature ; — and that 
he may be termed God over all, as being merely the God 
of the Jews and Gentiles, in the lower sense of the word ; 
the Mediator, the Head of the church, and the Judge of 
the world, by the Father's appointment. Similar to these 
are the renderings and expositions which have proceeded 
from the lips and pens of Unitarians, but which have sub- 
jected them to the opprobrious names of mere sciolists and 
God-deniers !" — Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 424-427. 



E. 



" Above all, it is worthy of remark, that, as humility 
and obedience are here the subject of discourse, we ought 
to understand what St. Paul says, of Christ's humanity ; 
for his divine nature, being the same as that of the 
Father, is not susceptible of humility and obedience. 
These are excellencies, not of the Creator, but of created 
beings. — Le Clerc : Le Nouv. Test. 

" Though he was in a divine form. — Luther. Though 
he zoas like God, and was his image. — J. D. Michaelis. 
Though he was the visible image of God. — Seiler. 
Though he had it in his power to he in the lofty station of 
God. — Storr. 



284 APPENDIX. 

" The form of God here signifies majesty. ... I ac- 
knowledge, indeed, that Paul does not make mention of 
Christ's divine essence. — Calvin. 

" From this place, indeed, the Fathers, used to prove 
the Divinity of Christ ; but the form of God is not God 
himself. — Jas Heerbrand. 

" Thought it not robbery to be as God. — Doddridge 
and Wynne. Did not think it robbery to be like God. — 
Mack night. 

" Did not covet to appear as God. — Dr. Whttby. 
Was not fond, or tenacious, of appearing as God ; did 
not eagerly insist to be equal with God. — Bishop Sher- 
lock. 

" Was not tenacious of this equality with God, did not 
consider it as a thing to be eagerly grasped. — Principal 
Hill. Did not think equality with God a thing to be 
seized with violence. — S. T. Coleridge. He regarded 
not the being equal with God as a thing to be eagerly 
coveted. — Professor Stuart. Did not esteem it an 
object to be caught at to be on a parity with God. — Dr. 
J. P. Smith. 

" The Apostle," says Erasmus, " speaks of Christ as 

man He did not usurp to himself equality with God, 

but ' humbled himself.' .... What is here rendered, He 
did not think it robbery, fyc. Ambrose explains, 'He did 
not assert, or arrogate to himself, equality with God ; so 
that he might show us an example of humility ; but sub- 
jected himself, that he might be exalted by the Father.' 
.... But what excellence did Paul attribute to Christ, by 
saying, that, though God by nature, he thought it not 
robbery — that is, knew himself to be God? Now, it is 
certain that never is greater violence done to the Holy 
Scriptures, than when, in contending with heretics, we 



APPENDIX. 285 

wrest everything for the sake of victory. Yet I cannot 
see with what propriety this text makes against the 
Arians, who deny not that Christ is a God, and acknowl- 
edge him to be even a great God, blessed forever ; but 
who believe that the Father is called God, in a manner 
peculiarly distinguished above the Son and the Holy 
Spirit. St. Paul does not here treat of what Christ was, 
but how he acted, namely, by giving to us an example. 
He was both God and man ; but he concealed his divinity, 
whilst he exhibited his human nature to the very tomb ; 
for even others have been eminent for the miracles which 
they performed ; and if incidentally he did throw out 
scintillations of his divine nature, he referred them at all 
times to the Father, and arrogated nothing to himself. 
The whole passage, therefore, seems to me to be most 
violently misapplied to the nature of Christ; since Paul is 
treating only of his appearance as manifested to us." 
Annot. in Op. torn. vi. pp. 867, 868. 

In regard to this passage, Professor Stuart says, " Our 
common version .... seems to render nugatory, or at 
least irrelevant, a part of the Apostle's reasoning in this 
passage. He is enforcing the principle of Christian 

humility upon the Philippians But how was it any 

proof or example of humility, that he did not think it 
rolbery to he equal with God ? " Ans. to Channing y Let. 
iii. II. p. 84. 

The above extracts are taken from the Concessions of 
Trinitarians, pp. 476 - 480. 



286 



APPENDIX. 



F. 



"Our author takes for granted," says Pitkin, " what is 
by no means admitted, that Jesus in calling himself the 
root of David meant that he was the ' source of David's 
being.' In several instances in the Sacred Scriptures, he 
is spoken of under the figure of a Root, but no where, 
we believe, in connexions which should induce us to 
regard him as the prime source of all being. In Isa. liii. 
2, he is spoken of as 'a root out of a dry ground,' and 
the same prophet, as quoted by Paul, Rom. xv. 12, says in 
respect to him, 'There shall he a root of Jesse, and he 
shall rise to reign over the Gentiles, in him shall the Gen- 
tiles trust.' Here it is declared, that ' there shall he a 
root of Jesse,' not that there was from all eternity a root 
from which Jesse was to spring, the source of Jesse's 
being. No, the evident meaning is, that from the seed of 
Jesse there shall be a root, which root is Christ, in whom 
the Gentiles were to trust. So the obvious meaning of 
the declaration of our Lord, 'I am the root and the off- 
spring of David, the bright and morning star/ appears to 
be this ; that as a lineal descendant, in a legal point of 
view, from the seed of David, he was his offspring, and 
that in his official capacity as the Messiah, he became 
the root of the choicest hopes and expectations of David, 
and of the chief glory of his house and people. In a 
like sense many a child has been exalted to official sta- 
tions, which rendered him his father's lord, and a fruitful 
root of his prosperity and honor." From Pitkin's Reply 
to Baker, as reprinted in Charleston, 1S43, pp. 63, 64. 



APPENDIX. 287 



G. 



The extracts which follow are from the Concessions of 
Trinitarians, p. 579. 

" A great lord is termed Lord of lords, because he 
possesses authority over many other Lords. The title 
King of kings is used of him who rules over a number of 
kings ; and was formerly employed of the sovereigns of 
Persia, Assyria, Babylon, and Egypt." — Drusius. 

" King of kings, or God's vicegerent over the whole 
earth ; a title belonging to him alone whom God hath 
anointed his king, Ps. ii. 2, 6." — Pvle. (Similarly inter- 
preted by Grotius and the Assembly's Annotator.) 

" On account of his exaltation to heaven, at the right 
hand of God the Father, Jesus is called the King of 
kings and Lord of lords. — Ltmborch : Tlieol. Christ. 
lib. ii. cap. 2, § 16. (To the same purport, Archbishop 
Secker, Lect. vii. vol. i. pp. 102, 103.) 

" Even as man, Christ is the King of kings, and the 
Lord of lords." — Calmet on chap. xix. 16. 

" King of kings, according to the style of the oriental 
languages, answers to great, as if it was the great king, 
which was the style of the Greeks when they spoke of 
the Persian monarchy. But such reduplications were not 
so proper to the oriental style, but that, to show the ex- 
cellency of any thing, the Greeks and Romans used them 
too ; of which many instances might be given out of the 
best authors." — Daubuz on chap. xix. 16. 



288 APPENDIX. 



H. 



" No text of the New Testament has been more fre- 
quently cited, perhaps, in proof of the Trinity, than the 
last verse of Paul's second epistle to the Corinthians. It 
is a benediction. ' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the love of God, and the participation of the Holy 
Spirit, be with you all.' Here, it is said, are the three 
persons of the Trinity, brought together, made equal, and 
more than this, made the objects of worship. But all 
appearance of intimating such a doctrine, is instantly dis- 
sipated by a consideration, which seems to have been 
strangely overlooked. The second person of this Trinity 
is God, the whole Deity, without any distinction of per- 
sons. ' The love of GodS So far then from supporting 
the doctrine of the Trinity, this passage contains a strong 
argument against it. Divinity is by implication denied to 
Christ, for he is spoken of in connexion with God, but as 
distinct from him. ' The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
and the love of God.' There is no intimation that these 
two persons are one being, or that they are both God, or 
constitute one God. One is God, in the most unlimited 
sense, comprehending the three persons, if the word God 
ever can be supposed to do so. The other is the Lord 
Jesus Christ, connected with God by the particle and, 
proving, if any thing can prove, that the Lord Jesus 
Christ is out of the Deity, and not in it. 

"In the last clause the word 'fellowship' serves to 
mystify this passage. In common language, this word is 
nearly synonymous with the word ' companionship,' and 
would seem to intimate that the Apostle wished the early 
Christians the companionship of the Holy Spirit. But 



APPENDIX. 289 

the English word, which comes nearest to it, is ' partici- 
pation.' We have fellowship wiili a person, but participa- 
tion in a thing. It is only by a figure of speech, that we 
can participate in a person. We participate in a thing 
without a figure. The meaning, therefore, evidently is, 
' May you be partakers of the Holy Spirit.' 

" The phrase, ' the Holy Spirit,' so far from indicating 
a person, is in the original in the neuter gender, signify- 
ing that it is not a person, but a thing. There are doubts 
then, suggested by the very language, not only whether 
the Holy Spirit be a Person of the Trinity, but whether 
it be a person at all. Those doubts are much strength- 
ened, when we compare such parallel passages as these; 
* Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days 
hence.' The same writer expresses the same meaning in 
another place; 'I send the promise of my Father upon 
you — ye shall be endued with power from on liigh? To 
be baptized with a person, hardly makes sense. Besides, 
what is called the ; Holy Ghost,' in one passage, is evi- 
dently called 'power from on high ' in the other. Power 
from on high is evidently not a person." — Bitmap's Ex- 
pository Lectures, pp. 13 15. 



It is a frequent complaint of Trinitarians against Uni- 
tarians, that they love to bring forward great names in 
support of their system. It is certainly very pleasant to 
find ourselves in good company ; yet if all the great men 
25 



290 



APPENDIX. 



in the world had embraced a certain opinion, however 
such a circumstance might add weight and dignity to that 
opinion, it would be no certain evidence of its truth. 
But when Trinitarians stoutly deny what Unitarians be- 
lieve to be a fact, it becomes the duty of the latter to give 
the reasons for their belief of the fact. In regard to the 
religious opinions of Sir Isaac Newton, I will make a few 
extracts from Sparks' 's Inquiry. " Sir Isaac Newton," 
says he, " was one of the first, who formally engaged in 
proving the spuriousness of the famous text of the three 
heavenly witnesses, 1 John, v. 7; and also in showing 
that the received reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16, is a corruption. 
This subject was discussed in two letters said to have 
been written to Le Clerc. The language and arguments 
are precisely such as would be used by Unitarians, and 
such as Trinitarians of that day, before the controversy 
touching those passages had been much agitated, could 
not be supposed to have employed. In adverting to the 
testimony of Cyprian, Newton observes, that ' he does not 
say, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, as in 
1 John v. 7, but the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 
as it is in Baptism, the place from which they at first 
tried to derive the Trinity.' Do you believe," inquires 
Mr. Sparks, u this language ever escaped from a Trinita- 
rian ? Instead of indicating any confidence in the doc- 
trine of the Trinity, does it not strongly imply that the 
advocates of this doctrine have tried in vain to find it in 
a text, to which they have universally resorted as a strong 
hold 1 The person who can read these Letters with an 
unshaken conviction that the author was not an anti-trini- 
tarian, must have a rule of deciding the meaning of a 

writer from his language, which few will apprehend 

It is known, that Erasmus received the text of the three 



APPENDIX. 291 

witnesses into his Testament on the authority of a single 
manuscript in England. He doubted the value of this 
manuscript, and wrote much against it. Newton says, 
that his adversaries in England never answered his accu- 
sations, ' but, on the contrary, when they had got the 
Trinity into his edition, they threw by their manuscript, 
if they had one, as an almanac out of date.' It may be 
doubted," Mr. Sparks quaintly observes, " whether a 
Trinitarian would thus have spoken." 

" When Sir Isaac Newton was Master of the Mint, the 
office of Assay Master was filled by Mr. Hopton Haynes. 
This gentleman was a Unitarian, and wrote with much 
ability and learning a treatise on the subject, which has 
recently been several times republished.* Mr. Haynes, 
who was long and intimately acquainted with Newton, 
declared to a friend,f that ' he did not believe our Lord's 
pre-existence, being a Socinian, as we call it, in that 
article ; and that Sir Isaac much lamented Dr. Clarke's 
embracing Arianism, which opinion he feared had been, 
and still would be, if maintained by learned men, a great 
obstruction to the progress of Christianity.' .... There 
is yet another argument directly in point, and in my mind 
an unanswerable one. It is well known, that Newton left 
several papers on theological subjects, which have never 
been permitted to come before the world. They were 
cautiously excluded from Horsley's large edition of his 
works. These papers have been said to contain more at 
large the author's views of the Unitarian system ; nor has 



* This work is called a Scripture Account of the Attributes and Wor- 
ship of God, and of the character and Offices of Jesus Christ. 

t The Rev. Richard Baron, " a person of great probity and public 
spirit, and known by many valuable publications." 



292 



APPENDIX. 



this report been contradicted by the persons who hold the 
papers in their possession. It was not contradicted by 
Horsley, who examined the papers, and declared them 
unsuitable for publication. What could Horsley find in 
any theological writings of Sir Isaac Newton, which he 
deemed proper to keep in the dark 1 This question has 
been answered in conformity with the common sense of 
mankind, by a writer, who cannot be supposed to have 
spoken from interested motives. * Newton's religious 
opinions were not orthodox. Eor example, he did not 
believe in the Trinity. This gives us the reason why 
Horsley, the champion of the Trinity, found Newton's 
papers unfit for publication. But it is much to be re- 
gretted, that they have never seen the light.'* .... I will 
only add, that Dr. Chalmers has confessed his belief in 
the Unitarian sentiments of Newton — awkwardly enough, 
to be sure, but still it is a confession — and this, after 
making him not only the greatest and wisest philosopher, 
but the acutest and profoundest theologian, whom the 
world has seen." t — Sparks's Inquiry, pp. 367 - 374. 

Speaking of Unitarian tenets Lord Jeffrey said, " to 
which there is reason to believe neither Milton nor 
Newton were disinclined." — Concessions of Trinitarians, 
p. 6. 

* Thomson's History of the Royal Society, p. 283 ; Annals of Philoso- 
phy, vol. ii. p. 322 ; as quoted by Mardon. 

t Compare the Preface to Dr. Chalmers Discourses with the second 
sermon in the course. See likewise Unitarian Miscellany, vol. i. p. 
167. 

For further information respecting the sentiments of Newton, consult 
Mardon's Letter to the Rev. Dr. Chalmers ; and Carpenter's Examina- 
tion of Magee's Charges against Unitarians and Unitarianism, p. 102. 



APPENDIX. 293 



K. 



If I am in error, my error has cost me dear. In pro- 
claiming my adherence to another faith than that in 
which I was educated, I have had very little to gain, and 
avast deal — almost everything — to lose. The excel- 
lent John Hales, in his Letter to Archbishop Laud, has 
some remarks which so exactly suit my views, that I can- 
not forbear quoting them. " If they be errors which 1 
have here vented," says he, " as perchance they are, yet 
my will hath no part in them, and they are but the issues 
of unfortunate inquiry. Galen, that great physician, 
speaks thus of himself, ' I know not how/ says that 
worthy person, ' even from my youth up, in a wonderful 
manner, Vhether by divine inspiration, or by fury and 
possession, or whatever you may please to style it, I have 
much contemned the opinion of the many ; but truth and 
knowledge, I have above measure affected, verily per- 
suading myself, that a fairer, more divine fortune could 
never befal a man.' Some title, some claim," says Hales, 
"I may justly lay to the words of this excellent person ; 
for the pursuit of truth has been my only care; ever since 
I first understood the meaning of the word. For this, I 
have forsaken all hopes, all friends, all desires, which 
might bias me, and hinder me from driving right at what 
I aimed. For this, I have spent my money, my means, 
my youth, my age, and all I have; that I might remove 
from myself that censure of Tertullian, — Suo vitio quis 
quid ignorat? If, with all this cost and pains, my pur- 
chase is but error, I may safely say, to err hath cost me 
more, than it has many to find the truth ; and truth itself 
shall give me this testimony, that if I have missed of her, 
it is not my fault, but my misfortune. 
25* 



294 



APPENDIX. 



L. 



In regard to the high tone of morality among Unita- 
rians, Bishop Burnet says, " I must also do this right to 
the Unitarians as to own, that their rules in morality are 
exact and severe ; that they are generally men of probity, 
justice, and charity, and seem to be very much in earn- 
est in pressing the obligations to very high degrees in 
virtue." — Bishop Burnet ; apud Field's Utters, p. 26. 
See also life of Burnet, prefixed to the " History of His 
Own Time," vol. i. pp. 8, 9. Lond. 1818. 

Dr. Adams says, " with regard to their moral code, the 
principles of the Unitarians do not seem to admit of their 
loosening, in the least, the bonds of duty ; on the con- 
trary, they appear to be actuated by an earnest desire to 
promote practical religion. Love is, with them, the ful- 
filling of the law ; and the habitual practice of virtue, 
from a principle of love to God, and benevolence to man, 
is, in their judgment, the sum and substance of Chris- 
tianity." — Religious World Displayed ; apud Field's let- 
ters, p. 25. 

The above testimonies are taken from " Concessions of 
Trinitarians," p. 4. 



M. 

" The meaning of this charge," says Dr. Gannett, 
namely, that Unitarianism is a negative system, "may be 
that our faith embraces few positive or affirmative proposi- 
tions. This is doubtless the sense in which we should take 
the remark, that ( it is a system of negations. 5 It has been 



APPENDIX. 



295 



said, with an attempt at smartness, that it * consists in not 
believing.' The ground of this assertion is the fact, that 
the Unitarian Christian does not receive certain doctrines 
of the Calvinistic or Orthodox theology. With equal 
reason therefore might the Calvinistic faith be said to 
consist in not believing, because the disciple of this school 
rejects the peculiar dogmas of other still larger divisions 

of the Christian Church A cursory survey of what 

we do believe, may show how far the assertion is correct, 
that our faith is of a negative character in respect to its 
doctrines. 

" We do then believe in the existence of a God ; a 
Being of infinite perfection — a pure Spirit — the Author, 
Sovereign, and Father of the Universe — the spring of 
peace and joy. We believe in a moral government of the 
universe ; by which all intelligent creatures are made sub- 
ject to wise and immutable laws. We believe in a right- 
eous providence ; within which all things are included. 
We believe in the moral nature of man; in his freedom 
of choice, his capacity of improvement, and his liability 
to err. We believe in the divine mission of Jesus Christ; 
in his miracles, his perfect character, his authoritative 
teaching, his voluntary death, and his triumphant resur- 
rection. We believe in the necessity of obedience to the 
will of God, and of repentance for sin ; and in the insep- 
arable connexion between goodness and happiness on the 
one hand, and wickedness and misery on the other. We 
believe in the immortality and accountableness of man; 
in spiritual judgment and future retribution. We believe 
in the authority and sufficiency of the Scriptures in respect 
both to faith and to practice. We believe in the forgive- 
ness of sins, in the efficacy of prayer, and in the impor- 
tance of a deep and permanent change in them who lead 



296 APPENDIX. 

vicious or careless lives. To sum up all in one line, we 
believe in God, in Christ, in duty here, and in recompense 
hereafter. 

" Now if this exposition of our belief does not contain 
enough which is affirmative or positive in its character, it 
would be useless to collect any further evidence to the 
same effect. We are neither atheists nor infidels. We 
disbelieve a great deal that has been believed ; and we 
thank God that we have escaped the contagion of many 
errors which have prevailed in the world. But we also 
believe a great deal ; nothing which is unintelligible or 
contradictory to sound reason, but much which reason 
alone would not have taught us. What we do believe, 
we find in the Bible. What we find in the Bible, as a 
revelation from God, we believe.' - ' — Christian Unitarian- 
ism not a negative system. Tract No. 94, 1st series. 
pp. 4, 5, 6. 



N. 

It is very clear that many of the harsh features of the 
Calvinistic system have been softened down — some of 
its absurdities abandoned, and a milder and more rational 
faith substituted — chiefly through the influence, as I con- 
fidently believe, of Unitarianism. Where is the clergyman 
of the present day who dares preach the doctrine of the 
damnation of infants 1 And how few are there among 
those who call themselves Orthodox, who now venture to 
preach the doctrines of absolute and unconditional elec- 
tion and reprobation 1 



APPENDIX. 297 



O. 

Some remarks which I have met with in the Christian 
Examiner for September and October, 1826, are appropri- 
ate, and will give additional illustration to my meaning, 
The writer is asserting that the Calvinistic doctrine of 
atonement is essentially opposed to the glorious and per- 
fect character of God; and he says, " Here, perhaps, it 
will be said, that I have only marshalled in array the nat- 
ural sentiments of an evil and shortsighted man, against 
what is said of an infinite Being, whose designs are too 
vast for him to comprehend, and therefore such as he is 
not to sit in judgment upon, by his notions of what is 
right, or his notions of what is wrong. But to this it may 
be replied, as has often been replied before now, that it is 
one thing, and a very presumptuous thing, for unassisted 
reason to say what God will do ; but quite another, and a 
very allowable thing, to say what he does not do, and 
never will.* But since I believe all his communications to 
mankind have had respect to the measure of their capaci- 
ties, and that he will never, by his conduct, shock the 
moral feelings, or contradict the natural judgments of men, 
I am not anxious to repel this charge. Nay, more ; as I 
also believe the doctrine in question has the support of no 
such authority as its supporters plead, I am not only not 
anxious to repel it, but conceive the fact its full admission 
establishes, affords a ground to stand on with an advan- 
tage not readily to be yielded. For, if these natural sen- 

* For instance ; it would be presumptuous indeed to make out a series 
of propositions, and say, that the Deity intended at some future day to 
adopt them as the rules of his government ; but the humblest need not 
hesitate to say, that he does not act the tyrant, and never will. 



298 



APPENDIX. 



timents do revolt against it, there rises a clear and un- 
questionable right to demand, that the opinion in question 
be shown to have for its evidence, the clear, explicit, and 
not to be mistaken language of those writings in which 
alone I acknowledge any authority over my faith. But in 
these there is nothing which compels me to think God is 
anything like the unmerciful being this doctrine would 
make him. On the contrary, it appears in strong lines of 
light, from Moses to St. John, that he requires only re- 
pentance, nothing but repentance,* to remove the punish- 
ment of sin, and restore offenders to his favor. — " 

" — Though we are finite, and cannot perceive all re- 
lations, the marks of benevolent design so prevail in all 
we do perceive, that no mind can reasonably doubt that 
the whole constitution of things, the course of providence, 
nay, the ministering of every accident, tends to the sha- 
ping, and finishing of good. And it is hence reason per- 
ceives, when an Apostle said, ' God is Love/ with how 
much truth he spoke." 



P. 

In the commencement of the year 1839, several of the 
orthodox clergymen of Liverpool felt themselves called 
upon to preach a course of sermons against the dangerous 
and deadly errors of Unitarians. They accordingly gave 
an affectionate invitation " To those who called them- 
selves Unitarians in the town and neighborhood of Liver- 

* The word repentance is used in its most comprehensive sense, deno- 
ting both sorrow for sin, and reformation of life. 



APPENDIX. 299 

pool," to attend the proposed course of lectures. The 
Unitarian clergymen, rejoiced at what they considered an 
opportunity for a candid and fair discussion of both sides 
of the question, wrote to the orthodox clergy, and pro- 
posed several methods by which they " might contribute 
their portion of truth and argument towards the correc- 
tion of public sentiment on the great questions at issue 
between them." " Deeply aware," said they, " of our 
human liability to form and to convey false impressions 
of views and systems from which we dissent, we shall be 
anxious to pay a calm and respectful attention to your de- 
fence of the doctrines of your church. We will give 
notice of your lectures, as they succeed each other, to our 
congregations, and exhort them to hear you in the spirit 
of Christian justice and affection, presuming that, in a 
like spirit, you will recommend your hearers to listen to 
such reply as we may think it right to offer." 

It seems to me that all persons must pronounce such a 
proposition perfectly fair, and such an expectation perfectly 
natural. But the very clergyman who had made the call 
upon the Unitarians of the town and neighborhood of 
Liverpool to hear what he had to say, answered thus to 
the proposition. u I am compelled to reply in the negative. 
Were I to consent to this proposal, I should thereby 
admit that we stood on the terms of a religious equality , 

which is, in limine, denied Being unable, (you 

will excuse my necessary plainness of speech,) to recog- 
nize you as Christians, I cannot consent to meet you in a 
way which would imply that we occupy the same religious 
level. To you, there will be no sacrifice of principle or 
compromise of feeling, in entering our churches ; to us, 
there would be such a surrender of both in entering yours, 
as would peremptorily prohibit any such engagement." 



300 APPENDIX. 

This singular refusal was replied to in mild, yet sufficiently 
spirited language. I should like to quote passages from 
various parts of the preliminary correspondence, but must 
forbear. It may be found in the volume entitled Unitari- 
anism Defended, published at Liverpool in 1839. I have 
quoted the foregoing extracts to show the unwillingness 
of some of the orthodox clergy to countenance fair and 
honest investigation. I could mention many other in- 
stances where the same spirit has been manifested, and 
many orthodox theological works in which people are 
advised not to listen to the arguments of Unitarians, nor 
to read their books ; but not having them at present by 
me, I cannot tell the exact places where such advice is to 
be found. 



a. 



In looking over an old number of the Christian Exami- 
ner for 1826, I have met with a case in point, to show 
how impossible it is for an honest mind to pursue the 
course you recommend, and keep concealed what he is 
aware would cause his expulsion from an Orthodox church, 
if it were known, A physician in the State of Georgia, 
who in early life had given some attention to the subject 
without having obtained very definite views, connected 
himself finally with the Methodist Church. The cause of 
his avowal of Unitarian sentiments is thus stated. "In 
all this time," he says, " I had arrived at no definite con- 
clusion in regard to the Trinity, but considered it one of 
those obscure points, which, having no reference to prac- 



APPENDIX. 301 

tice, might be allowed to remain undisturbed. My opin- 
ions were rather favorable to the deity of the Saviour than 
otherwise. I continued in this state for nearly two years, 
when an observation made by Mr. C. in his sermon 
aroused me from my state of indifference. He said that 
Unitarians no more deserved the name of Christians, than 
infidels." A remark exactly tantamount to the one con- 
tained in the letter under consideration. " This remark," 
the writer goes on to say, " the first of such a kind that 
I had heard, except from Mr. W. of Philadelphia, induced 
me to think that I ought to state explicitly to Mr. C. my 
own doubts, that he might adopt such measures with re- 
gard to me as he thought proper. This I accordingly 
did, almost immediately after the meeting was dissolved. 
I told him that I could not say I believed Jesus Christ to 
be God, equal to the Father, though I could not deny it ; 
that the evidence of Scripture upon that point was not 
clear to my mind ; that hitherto I had considered its de- 
termination a matter of but little moment, since the wisest 
men had differed in opinion upon it, and assured him that 
I knew many Unitarians who were as eminent for piety 
and learning as any with whom I was acquainted. After 
some conversation, which failed to convince me, he cited 
me to appear before a select number of the church, with 
a view to my expulsion, solely in consequence of what he 
considered my erroneous opinions. 

" At the commencement of the meeting convened for 
that purpose, I presented to Mr. C. the first hymn of the 
West Boston Society, beginning with 

1 All-seeing God, 'tis thine to know 
The springs whence wrong opinions flow,' &c. 

remarking that I hoped he would not consider it irrelevant 
26 



302 



APPENDIX. 



to the occasion to sing that hymn. It was done. After 
the prayer T inquired with great seriousness, whether, at 
the time the citation was issued, he thought I believed the 
Bible. He replied, that he had no reason to think other- 
wise, or in words tantamount. I assured them that I be- 
lieved it most firmly, but that I could not accept the 
interpretation which men, fallible as myself, gave of it, if 
it did not coincide with my own reason, because that 
would, virtually, be to place my faith in the opinions of 
men, rather than on the word of God. I explained the 
origin of the Apostolic, Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, 
and told them that I assented to the Apostolic in great 
part, and intimated the absurdity of requiring assent to a 
creed originating in an era of so much mental debasement 
as the Athanasian. I adduced passages from Scripture 
to prove the inferiority of Christ to the Father ; that he 
was not omniscient, nor omnipresent. I then stated the 
awkwardness of the predicament in which they were about 
to place themselves by expelling from the church one who 
thus believed, and whose moral conduct had not been in 
the slightest degree impeached ; quoted that article in the 
'Discipline' which declares the ' Holy Scriptures to con- 
tain all things necessary to salvation, so that whatever is 
not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be 
required of any man that it should be believed as an arti- 
cle of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to sal- 
vation ; ■ told them, that if there were any defect in my 
mental powers, which incapacitated me from seeing the 
proof of the contested doctrines, they were not proved to 
me, and therefore, by that article, were not required to be 
believed. 

" The result was as I anticipated. They expelled from 
a church professedly Christian, one who believed Jesus 



APPENDIX. 303 

Christ to be the Messiah, and whose moral conduct was 
confessedly without the shadow of a suspicion, solely be- 
cause he could not do what was as impossible as to move 
the sun from the firmanent; viz., believe what appeared 
unsupported by Scripture, and contrary to reason." 

I will close this note with a fact mentioned by the writer 
of the above quotations, because it shows how little is 
gained, and how much is lost by those who employ denun- 
ciation instead of argument, and hard words instead of 
solid reasons. " Until the recent denunciations," he says, 
"of Mr. C, nothing was known, I presume, of the opin- 
ions of Unitarians, by the generality of the people. The 
cause of rational Christianity is unquestionably promoted 
by the anathemas which are fulminated by the Orthodox. 
A spirit of inquiry is awakened, which would otherwise 
have lain dormant, and which must produce a favorable 
result ultimately." 

This is perfectly in accordance with my opinion on the 
subject. This " spirit of inquiry," of which the Georgia 
physician speaks, is all that we ask for — all that we want. 
Give but a free and proper scope to that spirit, and the 
interests of liberal, rational Christianity must be speedily 
and universally advanced. 



R. 

I rejoice to know that there are some Trinitarians who 
are not willing thus to shut their Unitarian brethren out 
of Heaven. Bishop Watson says : " If different men, in 
carefully and conscientiously examining the Scriptures, 
should arrive at different conclusions, even on points of 
the last importance, we trust that God, who alone knows 



304 APPENDIX. 

what every man is capable of, will be merciful to him that 
is in error. We trust that he will pardon the Unitarian, 
if he be in an error, because he has fallen into it from the 
dread of becoming an Idolator, — of giving that glory to 
another which he conceives to be due to God alone. If 
the worshipper of Jesus Christ be in an error, we trust 
that God will pardon his mistake, because he has fallen 
into it from a dread of disobeying what he conceives to 
be revealed concerning the nature of the Son, or com- 
manded concerning the honor to be given to him. Both 
are actuated by the same principle — the fear of God ; 
and though that principle impels them into different roads, 
it is our hope and belief, that, if they add to their faith 
charity, they will meet in heaven." — Theol. Tracts, vol. 
i. pp. xvii, xviii. 



S. 

I have recently been very much struck with the singu- 
larly belligerent tone of the popular orthodoxy phraseology. 
It seems to me that Christians are assuming an attitude 
far too warlike for those who profess to be the meek and 
lowly followers of the " Prince of Peace." Most of the 
orthodox presses teem with articles calculated to fire the 
imagination and fill it with pictures of bannered hosts, and 
armies marching to battle. The Editor of the Christian 
Register, in a recent number giving an account of an an- 
niversary meeting of the 'Christian Alliance,' held at 
Boston, thus writes : " We must be permitted again to 
express our surprise that eminent Christian teachers, who 
we know deprecate war from their inmost souls, should 
allow themselves to indulge in a manner of speaking, 



APPENDIX. 305 

which cannot fail to kindle its spirit in the hearts of the 
excited crowds inflamed to enthusiasm by their elo- 
quence. After listening to such language as the following, 
the audience were, doubtless, ready to rush to arms. 

1 Our object now is,' says Dr. , ' reconnoitering, 

pioneering, and adopting measures for bringing all parts 
of Protestant Christendom to join in an united, simultan- 
eous attack upon the common enemy. Let the Methodists 
make an assault on one side, the Baptists on another ; let 
the Congregationalists charge on one flank, and the Epis- 
copalians on the other, until a breach is made in the walls 
of Babylon, and then rush in and take possession.' 

" Again Dr. says : 

1 Passing events portend a crisis at no distant day. A 
battle is to be fought. Ere long there will be a conflict of 
nations — a war of revolution.' 

" If our Orthodox brethren," continues the Editor, 
" do not really wish to have the question between Roman- 
ists and Protestants settled by the sword, why indulge 
in such fierce and warlike imagery 1 We protest against 
it in the name of the Peace Society." 

I cannot forbear to quote a few remarks from the 
same paper in regard to the manner in which Protes- 
tants are carrying on the warfare against Romanism. The 
same speaker quoted above, had, in the course of his very 
fine address, spoken as follows : — " We propose," he says, 
" secondly, to unite the minds of Protestant Christians 
in a simultaneous assault on Rome, and to render the 
Reformation again aggressive. Since the Reformation 
has ceased to be aggressive, it has ceased to progress. It 
is time then for Protestant Christendom to act against the 
enemy — to take a position offensive as well as de-fensive. 
The result of our inquiries is, that union is practicable. 

26* 



306 APPENDIX. 

Protestant Christians can be united in carrying the war to 
Rome. We propose, therefore, to make an assault on 
Rome itself." 

" 3d. By propagating the idea of religious freedom, by 
bringing this doctrine in contact with the mind of Italy." 

"The doctrine of religious freedom is a fundamental 
one. It lies at the foundation of society. It is one of the 
first that commends itself to our judgment in childhood — 
it is so interwoven with all our thoughts and feelings, that 
to us it seems impossible it should not be universally un- 
derstood and appreciated. The doctrine of religious free- 
dom, i. e. that every man has a right to think and act 
under a sense of his responsibility to God, that he has in 
his hands the Book of God, — His revelation, pointing 
out to him the way of life, prescribing to him his duty, 
and that he has a right to read, and think, and ascertain 
what God would have him to do. It is the doctrine which 
lies at the basis of the Reformation. There is no other 
judgment but private judgment. The Reformation rests 
on it. It was this doctrine which began and carried it 
on, though it has not been carried out in full in any other 
country but this. In England there was an approximation 
to it, and a partial approximation in France." 

"It moreover lies at the foundation of Christianity, 
and the Pope knows it. How was Christianity introduced 
to Rome. He will say, Peter preached it ; but I say, no. 
Turn to the Acts of the Apostles, and Paul will tell you 
how it came there. But, granting it was first preached at 
Rome by Peter, how was it introduced 1 By a course of 
procedure similar to what we propose to adopt now. If 
he went there, he went in the exercise of his private judg- 
ment — all that received it, embraced it in the exercise 
of their private judgment. No man can act otherwise, 



APPENDIX. 307 

and act rationally. The right to breathe the vital air, to 
walk on God's earth, to use our arms and our feet, is not 
more obvious than the right to use the reason with which 
God has endowed us. If by disseminating this doctrine 
in Italy, we should blow up the Pope's powder magazine, 
if we should overturn his throne, we cannot help it, — he 
should have kept out of the way. We are proclaiming 
God's truth, — we are doing God's work, and we are not 
concerned about the results which may follow. Such is 
the work before us." 

The Editor then remarks : " If our Orthodox brethren 
would but carry out these sentiments, they might form a 
' Christian Alliance,' which would amount to something 

more than mere boasting. Dr. has justly defined 

the principle of the Reformation. If all who act on that 
principle were combined together, if they were all admit- 
ted into the ranks — to adopt the fashionable evangelical 
imagery — then perhaps the Pope might be in danger of 
having ' his powder magazine blown up.' But for a few self- 
selected sects to form an exclusive combination, and de- 
nounce all who do not surrender the right which Dr. 

so forcibly maintains, and adopt a creed imposed by the 
clique, to undertake to overthrow the Roman Catholic 
religion by such a narrow policy, is perfectly ridiculous. 
If they are in earnest in their apprehensions of the spread 
of Popery, let them summon the entire hosts of Protes- 
tantism to the rescue, and not betray the cause by divi- 
ding and distracting the forces of its friends. As it is, 
these self-complacent sectaries who denominate them- 
selves the ' Christian Alliance,' are placing themselves 
between two fires, and provoking the hostility of the two 
great elemental principles of the Church and of Society. 
They are battling against uniformity, implicit faith, and 



308 APPENDIX. 

Church authority, as they are embodied in the Papal sys- 
tem, and against the right of private judgment, and free 
inquiry, in the entire mass of liberal Christians, whom 
they exclude from co-operation with them, and excommu- 
nicate with an intolerance and arrogated infallibility as 
glaring and offensive as that of Rome herself.* If the 
movement against Popery were placed upon a footing, on 
which all Protestants could rally, we should promptly and 
earnestly engage in it. But conducted in the narrow 
spirit, in which it is by the Presbyterians and Orthodox 
generally, what rational and reflecting person can wonder 
that the Romanists are increasing with fearful rapidity ! " 
In regard to the popular warlike phraseology, I would 
remark, that it is true that the great Apostle of the Gen- 
tiles sometimes made use of such expressions, but 
they were generally used in allusion to the Christian's 
internal conflicts, which are indeed perpetual. But it 
ought especially to be remembered that he lived in an 
age when the world's position was essentially differ- 
ent from what it is at present. The Roman nation was a 
nation of soldiers, and all the civilized world was under 
the Roman government. Paul himself was a Roman cit- 
izen. It was necessary, before any man could be a can- 
didate for office, that he should serve ten years as a sol- 
dier. " At the age of seventeen," says Burnap, in his 
Lectures on the History of Christianity, " every Roman 
citizen was liable to be enrolled and sent to the wars. 
When he arrived at the camp, he entered on a course of 
life, in which ease and indulgence were altogether un- 
known. He commenced a discipline of hardship and 
endurance, which, were it not made certain by historic 

* In proof of this I haye only to refer to the extracts from the let- 
ters to which I am now replying. — M. S. B. D. 



APPENDIX. 309 

records, would at this period of the world be utterly 
incredible. He was there furnished with a shield of suf- 
ficient size to protect his whole body, and thick and strong 
enough to resist the force of arrows, swords, and spears ; 
two javelins of some four feet in length, armed at the end 
with a three-cornered blade of about eighteen inches. 
To these was added a two edged sword, sharp at the point, 
equally calculated to strike or to thrust, as occasion might 
need. Boots for the defence of the legs, a breastplate of 
brass, a cap of the same, surmounted by a lofty plume, 
completed his panoply, and made him an object at once 
beautiful and terrible to the beholder. In addition to his 
heavy armor, the Roman soldier was compelled to march 
under the furniture of his tent, a burden which the puny 
men of our times would find themselves altogether unable 
to sustain. When they had arrived at the end of a fatiguing 
day's march, not an eye could be closed in sleep, nor 
a limb composed to rest, till their camp was surrounded 
by a trench twelve feet wide and twelve feet deep, sur- 
mounted by a breastwork of the same dimensions. When 
they were stationary, not a day nor an hour was lost. 
Their whole time was taken up in military and athletic 
exercises, which either crave strength and vigor to their 
bodies, or skill and dexterity to the use of their weapons. 
Such for nine centuries was a Roman army, not a day for 
the whole time that it did not exist and perform its various 
functions." 

Under such circumstances, it was exceedingly natural 
that the sagacious Apostle should clothe his thoughts in 
such language as would be most readily understood. For 
many centuries men had constantly lived in a state of 
warfare, and their ideas would naturally take their hue 
from the complexion of the times. 



310 



APPENDIX. 



But now, under the influence of the gospel, there is, to 
a great extent, " peace on earth," and there ought to be, 
and there must be, before Christ's kingdom can univer- 
sally come, " good will to man," from his brother man. 
That there will be an increasing conflict of opinions, the 
more men learn to think for themselves, and to throw off 
the shackles of human authority and tradition, there can 
be no doubt ; but the weapons for this warfare are spir- 
itual, not carnal ; the victory is to be gained by a firm 
and open adherence to truth and duty, and not by de- 
nunciation, and the array of hostile forces. 



T. 

An Orthodox clergyman of very high standing, recently, 
in a letter to me, objected to the use of the term " Su- 
preme God," as applied to Christ. " That is a phrase," 
said he, " which I have never, that I know of, once em- 
ployed myself; for which I have never felt any predilection ; 
which I regard as unscriptural and improper, because it 
seems to make the Son even superior to the Father." To 
this I replied : " I begin to think you are somewhat of a 
Unitarian yourself, when you say that you regard the 
phrase ' the supreme God,' as applied to Christ, as 
' unscriptural and improper. 5 You would not, I presume, 
be unwilling to apply the same phrase to the Father. It 
would not, I imagine, be unscriptural and improper to call 
him the supreme God. There certainly is a supreme God, 
and if the Father is not that Being, who is? But if 
Christ is equal with the Father, ' the same in substance, 
equal in power and glory,' as the Catechism says, why is 



APPENDIX. 311 

he not the supreme God too? Why has he not just as 
good a right to the title as the Father ? Look at it can- 
didly, and tell me, what possible difference can there be 
between two equal beings? If the title ' supreme God,' 
applied to Christ, makes him ' superior to the Father,' 
then the same title, applied to the Father, makes him su- 
perior to the Son. Is not this a logical inference? But 
if you believe the Father to be superior to the Son, you 
are no Trinitarian, in the present sense of that term; for 
the Confession of Faith asserts that they are equal ; and 
if they are equal, one cannot be superior to the other. 
Perhaps you believe that, in the Son and Spirit, we see 
only different manifestations of the same God; in that 
case, you are only a modal Trinitarian ; in other words, a 
Unitarian." 



U. 

I have just met with a very fine argument on this very 
point in Professor Norton's Statement of Reasons, which I 
will here introduce for the same reasons which have made 
me draw so largely upon Professor Sparks ; while I would 
as heartily recommend the perusal of the whole work to 
those who feel an interest in this matter. Professor Nor- 
ton says : " It is evident from the Scriptures, that none of 
those effects were produced, which would necessarily have 
resulted from its first annunciation by Christ, and its con- 
sequent communication by his Apostles. The disciples of 
our Saviour must, at some period, have considered him 
merely as a man. Such he was, to all appearance, and 
such, therefore, they must have believed him to be. Before 



312 APPENDIX. 

he commenced his ministry, his relations and fellow towns- 
men certainly regarded him as nothing more than a man. 
1 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother 
of James and Joseph, and of Judas and Simon? And are 
not his sisters here with us all?' At some particular 
period, the communication must have been made by our 
Saviour to his disciples, that he was not a mere man, but 
that he was, properly speaking, and in the highest sense, 
God himself. The doctrines with which we are contend- 
ing, and other doctrines of a similar character, have so 
obscured and confused the whole of Christianity, that even 
its historical facts appear to be regarded by many scarcely 
in the light of real occurrences. But we may carry our- 
selves back in imagination to the time when Christ was 
on earth, and place ourselves in the situation of the first 
believers. Let us then reflect for a moment on what 
would be the state of our own feelings, if some one with 
whom we had associated as a man, were to declare to us 
that he was really God himself. If his character and 
works had been such as to command any attention to such 
an assertion, still through what an agony of incredulity, 
and doubt, and amazement, and consternation, must the 
mind pass, before it could settle down into a conviction of 
the truth of his declaration. And when convinced of its 
truth, with what unspeakable astonishment should we be 
overwhelmed. With what extreme awe, and entire pros- 
tration of every faculty, should we approach and contem- 
plate such a being ; if indeed man, in his present tene- 
ment of clay, could endure such intercourse with his 
Maker. With what a strong and unrelaxing grasp would 
the idea seize upon our minds. How continually would 
it be expressed in the most forcible language, whenever 
we had occasion to speak of him. What a deep and in- 



APPENDIX. 313 

delible coloring would it give to every thought and senti- 
ment, in the remotest degree connected with an agent so 
mysterious and so awful. But we perceive nothing of 
this state of mind in the disciples of our Saviour ; but 
much that gives evidence of a very different state of 
mind. One may read over the first three Evangelists, and 
it must be by a more than ordinary exercise of ingenuity, 
if he discover what may pass for an argument, that either 
the writers, or the numerous individuals of whom they 
speak, regarded our Saviour as their Maker and God ; 
or that he ever assumed that character. Can we believe, 
that if such a most extraordinary annunciation, as has 
been supposed, had ever actually been made by him, no 
particular record of its circumstances, and immediate 
effects, would have been preserved 1 That the Evangel- 
ists, in their accounts of their Master, would have omitted 
the most remarkable event in his history and their own ? 
and that three of them, at least, (for so much must be 
conceded,) would have made no direct mention of far the 
most astonishing fact in relation to his character? Read 
over the account of the conduct and conversations of his 
disciples with their Master, and put it to your own feel- 
ings, whether they ever thought that they were conversing 
with their God 1 Read over these accounts attentively, 
and ask yourself, if this supposition do not appear to you 
the most incongruous that ever entered the human mind ? 
Take only the facts and conversation, which occurred 
before our Saviour's crucifixion, as related by St. John. 
Did Judas believe that he was betraying his God 1 Their 
Master washed the feet of his Apostles. Did the Apos- 
tles believe — but the question is too shocking to be stated 
in plain words. Did they then believe their Master to be 
God, when, surprised at his taking notice of an inquiry 
27 



314 APPENDIX. 

which they wished to make, but which they had not in fact 
proposed,* they thus addressed him ? ' Now we are sure 
that thou knowest all things, and that there is no need 
for any man to question thee. By this we know that thou 
earnest from God.' f Could they imagine, that he, who, 
throughout his conversation, spoke of himself only as the 
minister of God, and who in their presence prayed to God, 
was himself the Almighty ? Did they believe it was the 
Maker of Heaven and Earth whom they were deserting, 
when they left him upon his apprehension ? But there is 
hardly a fact or conversation recorded in the history of 
our Saviour's ministry, which may not afford ground for 
such questions as have been proposed. He who main- 
tains that the first disciples of our Saviour did ever really 
believe that they were in the immediate presence of their 
God, must maintain at the same time, that they were a 
class of men by themselves, and that all their feelings and 
conduct was immeasurably and inconceivably different, 
from what those of any other human beings would have 
been, under the same belief. 

" But beside the entire absence of that state of mind, 
which must have been produced by this belief, there are 
other continual indications, direct and indirect, of their 
opinions and feelings respecting their Master, wholly irre- 
concilable with the supposition of its existence during any 
period of his ministry or their own. Throughout the 
New Testament we find nothing which implies that such 
a most extraordinary change of feeling ever took place in 
the disciples of Christ, as must have been produced by the 
communication that their Master was God himself upon 
earth. Nowhere do we find the expression of those irre- 

* See John xvi. 17, 13, 19. t John xvi. 30. 



APPENDIX. 315 

sistible and absorbing sentiments, which must have pos- 
sessed their minds under the conviction of this fact. 
With this conviction, in what terms would they have 
spoken of his crucifixion, and of the circumstances with 
which it was attended 1 The power of language would 
have sunk under them in the attempt to express their feel- 
ings. Their words, when they approached the subject, 
would have been little more than a thrilling cry of horror 
and indignation. On this subject, they did indeed feel 
most deeply; but can we think that St. Peter regarded his 
Master as God incarnate, when he thus addressed the 
Jews by whom Christ had been crucified 1 ' ye men of 
Israel hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, proved to you 
to be a man from God, by miracles and wonders and 
signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye 
yourselves know, him, delivered up to you in conformity 
to the fixed will and foreknowledge of God, ye have cruci- 
fied and slain by the hands of the heathen. Him has God 
raised to life.' " 

Professor Norton then goes on to show how difficult it 
would have been to persuade the Jews to receive this doc- 
trine, so opposed to the fundamental principle of their 
faith, the unity of God ; how often it would have to be 
explicitly stated, explained, defended, and reinforced ; and 
he plainly shows, as any one who looks into the Bible can 
see, that we can find there nothing of the kind. 



316 APPENDIX. 



V. 



Mr. French, a Roman Catholic Barrister, in a discus- 
sion between himself and the Rev. J. Cumming, at Ham- 
mersmith, in 1840, page 482, makes these cutting remarks 
on those Protestants who denounce Unitarians for inter- 
preting the Bible for themselves. " If the Unitarian be 
not a Christian," he says, " it is in consequence of that 
prerogative with which my learned friend gratuitously 
invests him, namely, the right of interpreting the Bible 
for himself, spurning the authority of the Church of Ages, 
which teaches us that Christ is both God and man. It is 
utterly useless for my friend to tell me the Unitarian is 
not sincere and Christian. What! proscribe all the Uni- 
tarians in England ; men of splendid and commanding 
genius ; men of conscience and honor ; men of integrity 
and truth ; men who live and die — die actually with the 
persuasion that Christ is mere man, and ' Intercessor' — 
who believe in God most firmly ! Is it just, is it honora- 
ble, to say, they are not Christians, when it is his very 
system, the system which he himself recommends, that 
has caused their unchristianization 1 Oh it is really un- 
fair ! it is decidedly unkind, ungenerous, and unfair on the 
part of my learned friend, or on the part of any clergyman 
of the Church of England or Scotland." 



APPENDIX. 317 



W. 



To continue in the faith, as we have been taught it in 
the Bible, is one thing, and to continue in the faith as we 
have been taught by human interpretations, is another. 
To continue in the faith of the Bible, we must first find 
out what there is taught. And here, at once, opinions are 
formed as various as the human mind. Dr. Campbell 
remarks, " As to orthodox, I should be glad to know the 
meaning of the epithet. Nothing, you say, can be plainer. 
The orthodox are those, who, in religious matters, enter- 
tain right opinions. Be it so. How, then, is it possible I 
should know who they are that entertain right opinions, 
before I know what opinions are right ? I must therefore 
unquestionably know orthodoxy, before I can know or 
judge who are orthodox. Now, to know the truths of 
religion, which you call orthodox, is the very end of my 
inquiries : and am I to begin these inquiries on the pre- 
sumption that without any inquiry I know it already? .... 
There is nothing about which men have been, and still 
are, more divided. It has been accounted orthodox divin- 
ity in one age, which hath been branded as ridiculous fan- 
aticism in the next. It is at this day deemed the perfection 
of orthodoxy in one country, which in an adjacent country 
is looked upon as a damnable heresy. Nay, in the same 
country, hath not every sect a standard of its own 1 Ac- 
cordingly, when any person seriously uses the word, 
before we can understand his meaning, we must know to 
what communion he belongs. When that is known, we 
comprehend him perfectly. By the orthodox he means 
always those who agree in opinion with him and his party ; 
and by the heterodox, those who differ from him. When 

27* 



318 APPENDIX. 

one says, then, of any teacher whatever, that all the ortho- 
dox acknowledge his orthodoxy, he says neither more nor 
less than this : ' All who are of the same opinion with him, 
of which number I am one, believe him to be in the right. 5 
And is this anything more than what may be asserted by 
some person or other, of every teacher that ever did, or 
ever will exist? .... To say the truth, we have but too 
many ecclesiastic terms and phrases which savor grossly 
of the arts of a crafty priesthood, who meant to keep the 
world in ignorance, to secure an implicit faith in their 
own dogmas, and to intimidate men from an impartial 
inquiry into holy writ." — Letters on Systematic Theology, 
pp. 112-115. 



THE END. 



VALUABLE WORKS, 

$ufclfs&eTr antr for Sale 
BY JAMES MUNROE & COMPANY, 

No. 134 Washington Street, Boston. 



LIVERMORE'S COMMENTARY. The Four Gospels ; with 
a Commentary, intended for Sabbath School Teachers and 
Bible Classes, and as an Aid to Family Instruction. By A. 
A. Livermore. St. Ed. 2 Vols., containing Matthew, Mark, 
Luke and John. 12mo. 350 pp. each. 

LIVERMORE'S COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF 
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 12mo., with Map. 

"In a field of criticism, where sectarianism has spoiled nearly 
every tree and flower, this new product of a generous soil deserves 
our ncjtice as the nearest approach to an unsectarian work. We 
feel certain it will meet the wants of all who call themselves lib- 
eral Christians, as a family expositor, a reference book in the study 
of the Gospel, a companion in the Sunday School, and an aid to 
daily devotion. It is learned, yet not dry ; rational, yet not cold; 
fervent, yet not fanatical; tasteful, yet not one line for mere taste. 
Mr. Livermore is concise, practical, reasonable, full of generous 
and holy feeling. His first volume having met in a few months 
with so extensive a sale as to authorize a stereotype edition, we 
commend its simplicity, earnestness, purity of morals, and practi- 
cal piety to a popularity like that which has already rewarded the 
like labors of Mr. Barnes." — Hunt' s Merchants 1 Magazine and 
Commercial Review. 



NORTON ON THE TRINITY A Statement of Reasons for 
Not Believing the Doctrines of Trinitarians, concerning 1 the 
Nature of God, and the Person of Christ. By Andrews Nor- 
ton. 12mo. pp. 372. 

" Mr. Norton writes for intelligent men, for those who do not 
shrink from examination and patient thought, who are not dis- 
gusted at being required to exercise a manly independence, who 
seek truth for truth's sake, and are willing to pay the price of its 
attainment. Such will find in the work before us ample mate- 
rials for study and reflection. We are much mistaken, if to 
many of them it do not open new views." — Christian Examiner. 



SKETCH OF THE REFORMATION. By Rev. T. B. Fox. 

" This volume contains a short but clear narrative of the lives 
and labors of Luther, Tetzel, Melancthon, Zwingle, and others." 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

NOYES'S HEBREW PROPHETS. A New Translation of 
the Hebrew Prophets, arranged in Chronological Order. 3 
vols. 12mo. Each volume comprising about 300 pp. New 
edition, with additions. 

" This new edition is of increased value on account of the ad- 
ditions and corrections which it contains. Common readers will 
be surprised to observe how many passages, which are unintel- 
ligible to them in the common version, are here made plain 
and significant by a slight change of expression, of the mean- 
ing of a single word, or the turn of a sentence. We should 
advise all who wisli to procure a set of these translations to make 
haste to obtain one ; it is a purchase which they will never re- 
gret." — Christian Register. 



NOYES'S JOB. An Amended Version of the Book of Job, 
with an Introduction and Notes, chiefly Explanatory. By 
George R. Noyes. Second Edition, revised and corrected. 
I2mo. 

11 No translation has appeared in England, since that of Isaiah 
by Lowth, which can sustain a comparison with that of the Book 
of Job, by Mr. Noyes. With some slight exceptions, this latter is 
very much what we could wish it to be." — Spirit of the Pilgrims. 



FRIENDLY LETTERS TO A UNIVERSALIST, on Divine 
Rewards and Punishments. By Bernard Whitman. 16mo. 
pp. 368. 

" Though this work was hastily written, the materials for it were 
collected with good care and fidelity. It is a thorough work. It 
covers the whole ground of Universalist argument ; and gives a 
faithful expose of the opposing testimony of reason and Scripture. 
The work can hardly exasperate those against whose creed it is 
aimed ; for a spirit of courtesy and kindness pervades it. Nor can 
one, who already believes in a righteous retribution, fail to have 
his faith strengthened by so able a defence of that doctrine." — 
American Monthly Review. 



JOUFFROY'S ETHICS. Introduction to Ethics: including a 
Critical Survey of Moral Systems. Translated from the 
French of Jouffroy. By William H. Channing. 

This work consists of a critical review of various ethical sys- 
tems ; aiming to give a fair view of the merits and demerits of 
each, with especial regard to the particular points wherein lay the 
faultiness of each. To every student of moral philosophy, and of 
the history of the human mind, such a sketch must be of very 
great interest and value. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

PALFREY'S LOWELL LECTURES. Lowell Lectures on 
the Evidences of Christianity. By John Gorham Palfrey. 
With a Discourse on the Life and Character of John Lowell, 
Jr. By Edward Everett. 2 vols. 8vo. 

PALFREY'S SERMONS. Sermons on Duties belonging to 
some of the Conditions and Relations of Private Life. By 
John G. Palfrey, D. D., Professor of Biblical Literature in 
the University of Cambridge. 12mo. 



PALFREY'S ACADEMICAL LECTURES. Academical Lec- 
tures on the Jewish Scriptures and Antiquities. By John 
Gorham Palfrey, D. D., LL. D. Vol. I. The Last Four Books 
of the Pentateuch. Vol. II. Genesis and Prophets. 8vo. 

"The first volume of this valuable, learned, and elaborate work 
has just publicly appeared in a truly beautiful form. It is not a 
book to be lightly read or lightly spoken of. 

" We can only say that, from the time of its announcement as 
being in preparation, general expectation has been highly raised 
in regard to it, and that, as far as we have examined the present 
volume, or heard the opinions of those who are more competent 
to pass judgment upon its merits, we are happy to believe that it 
constitutes a noble addition to the many high claims of its dis- 
tinguished author to public esteem and honor, as a scholar, a 
divine, and a devoted supporter of American Literature." — JV. 
A. Review. 



WORCESTER'S LAST THOUGHTS, on Important Subjects. 
In three parts. I. Man's Liability to Sin. II. Supplemen- 
tary Illustrations. III. Man's Capacity to Obey. By Noah 
Worcester, D. D. 16mo. pp. 328. 



CHANNING'S WORKS. The Works of William E. Chan- 
ning, D. D. First complete American edition, with an Intro- 
duction. 6 vols. 12mo. $5. 

(O 3 This edition of the works was published under the author's 
own supervision. 



CHANNING'S SELF-CULTURE. Self-Culture. By W. E. 
Channing. With a Biographical Sketch of the author. 16mo. 
cloth, gilt Price 37k cents. 

" It should be the pocket companion of every young man in the 
country, and to be found on every lady's centre table." — Cultiva- 
tor. 

"It is indeed a gem of English composition, of sound, vigorous 
thought and pure wisdom." — Mobile Register. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY S PUBLICATIONS. 

PRACTICAL ETHICS. Human Life, or Practical Ethics. 
From the German of De Wette. Translated by Samuel Os- 
good. 2 vols. 12mo. 

" Those interested in the study of ethics, will find in the present 
volumes, a beautiful richness of illustration, and an extended con- 
sideration of the practical duties of life ; and although many rea- 
ders will doubtless dissent from some of the author's principles, 
as from his application of them, the book merits a reading, as ex- 
hibiting the views of a philosophical and independent mind, and, 
at the same time, those which prevail to a great extent on the con- 
tinent of Europe." — American Eclectic. 



BUCKMINSTER'S WORKS. The Works of Joseph Stevens 
Buckminster; with Memoirs of his Life. In 2 vols. 12mo. 

" One of the first religious books we remember to have read was 
the first volume of Buckminster's Sermons; and the beautifully 
writen life and two or three of the discourses fixed themselves in 
the mind, as nothing is fixed there save in our early years. 

" His sermons, as sermons, are certainly surpassed by none in 
the language." — Monthly Miscellany. 



PARKER'S MISCELLANEOUS WRITINGS. The Criti- 
cal and Miscellaneous Writings of Theodore Parker, Minister 
of the Second Church in Roxbury. 

" We are glad to see these miscellanies republished, and think 
all who read them will enjoy their spirit even when they disagree 
with their doctrines. The tone of earnest conviction, the glow of 
feeling, the occasional beauty of expression in these pages, is very 
refreshing." — Merchants' Magazine. 



AN OFFERING OF SYMPATHY TO THE AFFLICTED : 

Especially to Parents bereaved of their Children. Being a 
collection from Manuscripts never before published. With 
an Appendix of Extracts. By Francis Parkman. Third 
edition. 18mo. 

" We are not surprised that Dr. Parkman's excellent little vol- 
ume has reached a third edition. It has carried comfort to many 
a heart. We wish it well on its errand of peace." — Christian 
Examiner . 

"A volume deserving a cordial welcome to every house and 
heart. The variety of thought and expression, and yet the per- 
fect harmony of tone of feeling which marks this spiritual wreath 
for a Christian cemetery, will make it live and bloom as long 
as sorrow is known." — Hunt's Magazine. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

HENRY WARE, Jr. Views of Christian Truth, Piety, and 
Morality, Selected from the Writings of Dr. Priestley. With 
a Memoir of his life. By Henry Ware, Jr. 12mo. pp. 288. 

WARE ON CHRISTIAN CHARACTER. On the forma- 
tion of Christian Character, addressed to those who are seek- 
ing to lead a Religious Life. By Henry Ware, Jr., D. D. 
Twelfth Edition. 18mo. 



WARE'S LIFE OF THE SAVIOUR. The Life of the 
Saviour. By Henry Ware, Jr., Professor of Pulpit Eloquence 
and the Pastoral Care in Harvard University, pp. 284. Fourth 
Edition. 18mo. 

" This volume is intended particularly for the young ; but it is 
a valuable aid to every reader of the Gospels; an aid to the un- 
derstanding of them, and an aid to reflections upon their truths. 
It unites, in some good measure, the advantages of a paraphrase 
and a commentary, without the feebleness of the former, or the 
dryness of the latter." — American Monthly Review. 



HENRY WARE, Jr's. SCENES AND CHARACTERS, Il- 
lustrating Christian Truth. In a series of Tales, each num- 
ber complete in itself. To be had separately. Edited by the 
Rev. H. Ware, Jr. 

" If we may judge of this series of little works from the two 
numbers which have appeared, we should say that it bids fair to 
be eminently useful, and to realize whatever we might expect from 
the high character of the writers engaged. They should be read. 
Whoever contributes at all to circulate them does good to the pub- 
lic." — Boston Daily Advertiser. 

1. Trial and Self-Discipline. By Miss Savage, Author of 
'James Talbot.' 

2. The Skeptic. By Mrs. Follen, Author of ' The Well-spent 
Hour.' 

3. Home. By Miss Sedgwick, Author of 'Redwood,' &c. 

u One of the sweetest homely pictures of domestic life among 
the middle classes of New-England which it is possible to im- 
agine, and one full of the instruction which makes a way to the 
heart." — Tait's Magazine. 

4. Gleams of Truth. By the Rev. Joseph Tuckerman, D. D. 

5. The Backslider. By the Author of the 'Huguenots,' &c. 

6. Alfred ; Or, The Effects of True Repentance. And the 
Better Part. By the Author of ' Sophia Morton.' 

FOLLEN'S WORKS. The Works of Charles Follen ; with a 
Memoir of his Life. 5 vols. 12mo. 



JAMES MUNROE AND COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS. 

MRS. FARRAR'S LIFE OF JOHN HOWARD, the Philan- 
thropist, with a Preface by Rev. Henry Ware, Jr. 
This volume gives an interesting narrative of the life and also 
of the various undertakings of this eminent philanthropist; it is 
written with all the vigor of the other works of its author. 

GREENWOOD'S SERMONS. Sermons to Children. By F. 
W. P. Greenwood, D. D., Minister of King's Chapel, Boston. 
1 vol. 16mo. 

" We are delighted to meet with a volume for children in some 
other form than a story. We believe these Sermons will be read 
with as much interest as any of the little novels with which the 
press teems, and with more profit." — Christian Examiner. 



GREENWOOD'S SERMONS. Fifty-eight Sermons, by Rev. 
F. W. P. Greenwood, D. D., Minister of King's Chapel. 2 
vols. 12mo. with Portrait, vol. 1, pp. 396, vol. 2, pp. 398. 



GREENWOOD'S LIVES OF THE APOSTLES. 16mo. 
Two Steel Plates. 



MEMOIRS OF JOHN FREDERIC OBERLIN. With an 
Introduction, by Henry Ware, Jr. 2d Ed. with additions. 
Two Steel Plates. 1 vol. 16mo. 



BURNAP'S EXPOSITORY LECTURES. Expository Lec- 
tures on the Principal Passages of the Scriptures which 
relate to the Doctrine of the Trinity. By George. W. Bur- 
nap, Pastor of the First Independent Church of Baltimore. 
12mo. pp. 336. 

a It is refreshing in these days of controversy to meet with a 
volume of divinity that one can read with composure. His lec- 
tures discuss topics concerning which a difference of opinion exists 
but in a truly catholic spirit." — Observer. 



JAMES MUNROE & COMPANY, 

Being engaged in the publication of Juvenile Works, can offer 
to individuals and others, selecting for Sabbath, School, and 
District Libraries, superior advantages. And they keep con- 
stantly on hand the largest assortment of Juveniles to be found, 
embracing all the works by Mary Howitt, Mrs. Ellis, Aunt 
Kitty, Charlotte Elizabeth, the Abbotts, and others. All of 
which will be sold at a large discount from the trade prices. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



t 



